IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 08.12.2010 C.R.No.4427 of 2003 Oriental Insurance Company Limited ...Petitioner Versus Jai Narain and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present : Mr. Jagtar Kureel, Advocate, for Mr. D.P.Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral) Challenge in the present revision petition is to an order passed by the learned Executing Court on 15.03.2003 holding that execution petition is not maintainable and the Insurance Company, if so advised, may approach the appropriate court for the redressal of its grievances, if any. Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on an application filed by Asha Devi and others under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 awarded a compensation of Rs.3,30,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum. The operative part of the Award reads as under: “23. …..Since I have already held in the preceding paragraphs that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid authorization to drive the TATA-407 and was holding a driving licence to drive only scooter, car and jeep, therefore, though the insurer shall be bound to discharge the liability of indemnifying the compensation, yet it would be open for the insurance company to recover the amount of compensation from the insured in terms of the law laid down in National Insurance C.R.No.4427 of 2003 Company Limited Vs. R.K.Duggal 2002(1) (Civil) 326. This question shall, thus, stand answered in these terms. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of the claimants and against the respondents. Relief 24. In view of the findings of this Tribunal returned on the issues under adjudication, the claim petition is allowed with costs against the respondents jointly and severally and the petitioners are awarded compensation amount of Rs.3,30,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization. Counsel fees is assessed at Rs.1100/- Memo of costs be prepared and file be consigned to the record room.” In terms of liberty granted, the petitioner filed an application for recovery of the amount paid by it to the claimants from the owner. On such application, the Tribunal passed an order that the execution petition is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment reported as Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanjappan and others (2004) 13 SCC 224, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in terms of liberty granted by the Tribunal, the Insurance Company seek execution and recover the amount from the owner. It was held to the following effect: “8. Therefore, while setting aside the judgment of the High Court, we direct in terms of what has been stated in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Baljit Kaur, 2004 ACJ 428 (SC), that the insurer shall pay the quantum of compensation fixed by the Claims Tribunal, about which there was no dispute raised, to the respondents-claimants within 3 months from today. For the purpose of recovering the same from the insured, the insurer shall not be required to file a suit. It may initiate a proceeding before the concerned executing court as if the dispute between 2 C.R.No.4427 of 2003 the insurer and the owner was the subject matter of determination before the Tribunal and the issue is decided against the owner and in favour of the insurer. ….” In view of the aforesaid judgment, the order passed by the learned Executing Court on 15.03.2003 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Executing Court for deciding the execution petition for recovery of the amount from the owner in accordance with law. 08.12.2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE 3