* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% C.R.P.148/2008
+ Date of Decision: 28th November, 2011
# RISHI PAL SINGH ...Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kundan Kumar Lal, Advocate
Versus
$ THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS. ....Respondents
Through: Mr. J.P.N. Shahi, Advocate for R-1
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN
JUDEGMENT
P.K.BHASIN, J
This revision petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the petitioner against the order dated 25th August, 2005 passed in execution case no. 30 of 2004 arising out of the award dated 13th July, 2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (‘MACT’ in short) in suit no. 202 of 2002, Mrs. Poonam Pandey & Ors. Vs. Nahar Singh & Anr.”.
2. Respondent nos. 2 to 7 herein are the legal heirs of one Prabhat Ranjan Pandey who had died in an accident involving the bus owned by the petitioner herein. His legal heirs had filed a compensation petition against the petitioner-owner and the driver of the bus involved in the accident who is respondent no. 8 herein. The MACT vide its award dated 13th July, 2004 had awarded compensation of ` 5,15,000 along with interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum against the petitioner and respondent no. 8 herein. The Insurance Company was not impleaded in the claim petition by the legal heirs of the deceased. The petitioner herein had not contested the claim petition while respondent no. 8 herein after filing written statement did not appear before the MACT which finally passed the award under Section 163-A of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Act. Neither the petitioner nor respondent no. 8 herein had challenged that award.
3. When the respondent nos. 2 to 7 had filed an execution petition respondent no. 1 herein, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, was impleaded in the execution proceedings and it had offered to pay the principal amount of ` 5,15,000 to the claimants and the MACT had accordingly directed this insurance company to make that much payment to the claimants as well as interest but had given it the right to recover the payment to be made on account of the interest from the owner of the bus, the petitioner herein. This direction was given vide impugned order dated 25th August, 2008.
4. The petitioner has challenged the order of MACT giving liberty to the insurance company to get the interest amount recovered from him. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the bus involved in the accident was insured with respondent no. 1 herein the entire liability was that of this company and nothing could be ordered to be recovered from the petitioner.
5. However, in my view, there is no merit in this contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. As noticed already, the original award was passed against the petitioner as well as respondent no. 8 herein. That award has not been challenged. The insurance company itself had volunteered to make the payment of principal amount awarded in favour of respondent nos. 2 to 7 herein by the MACT vide its award dated 13th July, 2004 during the execution proceedings. That would, however, not mean that the original award directing the recovery of entire payment from the petitioner and respondent no. 8 herein ceased to be executable against them. Thus, the liability of payment of interest under the award dated 13th July, 2004 would in any event continue to be that of the petitioner herein and there is no illegality committed by the MACT in giving respondent no. 1 herein the right to recover the interest amount from the petitioner herein.
6. I, therefore, do not find any merit in this revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
P.K. BHASIN, J
