1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 1/2007 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1091/2006 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 374/2003 The Registrar (Judicial.) High Court, Bench at Aurangabad. ...Petitioner versus Vithal s/o Janardan Thokal. ...Respondent. ... CORAM : R.K. Deshpande, J Date : 11-11-2009 PER COURT : 1. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vide First Appeal No. 374/2003 before this Court is challenging the judgment and award dated 27-12-2002 passed by learned Member, M.A.C.T., Ahmednagar in M.A.C.P. No. 1025/1994. During the pendency of the said First Appeal, original claimants moved civil application No. 1091/2006 for granting permission to withdraw an amount of Rs.1,34,064/- deposited by the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. - the appellant. This Court passed an order dated 10-02-2005 in civil application No. 9206/2004 and permitted the applicants to withdraw an 2 amount of Rs.1,34,064/- out of total amount of Rs. 3,34,064/- by furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. The respondent no. 2 in the first appeal - the owner of the vehicle was also directed to furnish the security of the said amount to the satisfaction of the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court and balance amount of Rs. 2 lac was directed to be kept in fix deposit in nationalised bank for a period of three years. 2. The Civil Application No. 1091/2006 was again placed before Court for orders and on 25-09-2006 an order was passed by this Court and this court observed that despite so many months have lapsed, respondent no. 2 owner of the vehicle did not furnish security and did not obey the orders passed by this Court earlier. This Court therefore, granted four weeks time to furnish the security and in case of default, it was observed that this Court shall be constrained to take proceeding for contempt of Court against the respondent no.2. In spite of aforesaid order, the respondent no. 2 did not furnish security and therefore, this court on 26-02-2007 and thereafter from time to time directed respondent no. 2 to remain present in this Court and the bailable warrants were also issued. However, the respondent no. 2 is not present in this Court. 3. This Court ultimately decided the First appeal No. 374/2003 on 21-09-2007 and the operative part of the said judgment is re-produced below. 3 In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The direction given by the Tribunal that “The opponent Nos. 1 & 2 shall jointly and severally pay the amount of compensation” is set aside. Instead, it be substituted by the sentence “The opponent No.1 (i.e. present respondent No.5-Vithal) is liable to pay compensation of Rs.2,12,000/- (inclusive of No Fault Liability amount) to the applicants with interest @ 9% p.a.” The appellant shall however, satisfy the award in the first instance and may recover the compensation amount from the owner in the same proceedings as per the procedure laid down under the Law. The impugned award be accordingly modified. No costs. 4. This Court has directed the appellant – Insurance Company to satisfy the award in the first instance and it may recover the compensation amount from the owner in the same proceeding as per the procedure laid down in the law. The award passed by the Tribunal is thus modified. 5. After going through aforesaid order dated 21-09-2007 and the case papers, I do not find that the matter is required to be pursued further. Contempt proceedings are therefore, dropped. (R.K. DESHPANDE, J) tsk/cp1.07 4