Punjab-Haryana High Court
Prema Devi And Others vs Surender Singh And Others on 11 December, 2013
C.R No. 4979 of 2013 (O&M) - 1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
C.R.No. 4979 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of decision: 11.12.2013
Prema Devi and others
.... Petitioners
Versus
Surender Singh and others
..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.BANGARH.
Present:Mr. Sumit Sangwan, Advocate
for the petitioners.
*****
S.P.BANGARH.,J,(ORAL) Petitioners, herein, filed Motor Accident Claims Tribunal case No.87 of 2007 against the respondents before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short 'MACT'), Bhiwani and, therein, compensation to the tune of `8,69,000/- was awarded in their favour and against the respondents herein,vide award dated 30.10.2009.
Aggrieved against the award (supra), respondent No.3, herein, filed FAO No. 591 of 2010 in this Court seeking to set aside the award (supra). This FAO was taken together with other FAOs No. 589/2010, 590/2010, 4710/2010 2304/2010 and 1490 of 2010. Vide judgment 21.12.2011, this Court reduced the compensation awarded to the petitioners herein, to ` 6,46,600/- and it was held that the balance amount of ` 2,23,400/-, if already paid to the petitioners herein (claimants) shall not be recovered from them. Smriti The amount of ` 8,69,000/- was not indubitably 2013.12.13 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document C.R No. 4979 of 2013 (O&M) - 2- paid to the petitioners, while on the contrary that was deposited with the MACT, Bhiwani.
The petitioners moved an application before the MACT, Bhiwani on the ground that since the amount of compensation to the tune of ` 8,69,000/- has already been deposited by respondent No.3, herein, before the Tribunal, the entire amount be paid to them.
The MACT, Bhiwani did not allow this prayer of the petitioners and dismissed their application vide order dated 22.03.2013 (Annexure P-1).
Aggrieved against the same, the petitioners who are claimants before the MACT have filed present civil revision with the prayer of acceptance, thereof, and for disbursement of amount of ` 8,69,000/- that was awarded to them by the MACT on the ground that since the amount has already been deposited with the MACT by respondent No.3, that amount in totality be paid to them.
Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned order is illegal and the same is liable to be set aside and in view of the deposit of the entire amount of compensation to the tune of ` 8,69,000/- by respondent No.3 before the MACT, the petitioners are entitled to recover the same. He further contended that the judgement of this Court dated 21.12.2011 could only be applicable in the case of the petitioners, if respondent No.3 had not deposited the amount in the account of the MACT, Bhiwani.
Smriti2013.12.13 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document C.R No. 4979 of 2013 (O&M) - 3-
Thoughtful consideration has been given to the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners, but there is no merit, therein, as the order of this Court dated 21.12.2011 is being misconstrued by the petitioners. It has been candidly held by this Court that if the amount of ` 8,69,000/- has been paid to the petitioners, only in that event, the surplus amount of `2,23,400/- shall not be recovered from them. As already noticed, no amount has been paid to the petitioners prior to the filing of the application before the MACT, Bhiwani by the petitioners. So, when no amount has been paid to the petitioners in respect of the compensation so far, they can only be entitled for recovery of `6,46,600/- from the respondents, as per the order of this Court.
The MACT, thus, committed no error in not paying ` 2,23,400/- to the petitioners and obviously this amount has to be refunded to respondent No.3. The amount of `6,46,600/- has already been paid to the petitioners. So, no liability of respondent No.3 survives towards the petitioners.
Therefore, the application of the petitioners was required to be dismissed as fully satisfied by MACT, Bhiwani. Thus, there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order that was passed by the MACT, Bhiwani.
Resultantly, the revision fails and is, hereby, dismissed with no order as to costs.
Smriti 11.12.2013 (S.P.BANGARH) 2013.12.13 17:18 smriti I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document JUDGE