JUDGMENT Vineet Saran, J.
1. Heard Sri Amresh Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the record.
2. In a motor accident, one Kapoor Kahar received fatal injuries and consequently, the widow, minor children and parents of the deceased filed a Claim Petition No. 35 of 2001 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal passed an award in favour of the claimants, granting compensation of Rs. 1,70,000/-, which was to be paid by the petitioner-insurer, with the liberty that the insurer could realize the same from the insured.
3. The case of the petitioner is that after the passing of the award, they have already filed an application under Section 174 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 for realization of the said amount from the insured, and after the same is realized, they shall make the payment to the claimants. In the meantime an application for execution of the award has also been filed by the claimants. By its order dated 15.2.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the application filed by the claimants has been allowed and a direction has been issued for realization of the awarded amount from the petitioner-insurer.
4. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that without deciding the application of the petitioner-insurer filed under Section 174 of the Motor Vehicle Act for realization of the amount from insured, the application of the claimants for execution of the award/realization of the amount from the insurance company could not have been passed. In my view, the said submission is not worthy of acceptance.
5. In the present case, the claimants have filed the claim petition in 2001, and the award was passed on 5.3.2004. More than two years have passed from the date of passing of the award, but the claimants, who are widow, minor children and parents of the deceased (all non-earning persons), have yet not got any compensation. The entire purpose of the Act, which is to provide speedy justice to the claimants, would be defeated in case the execution of the awarded is delayed or technical grounds. The insurance of the vehicle vis-a-vis the insured is not denied. Thus the liability of the insurer to satisfy the award would certainly be there so that the compensation awarded is paid to the claimants, however, the insurer can realize the same from the insured, as has already been directed by the Tribunal vide its award dated 5.3.2004.
6. In the aforesaid circumstances, the order dated 15.2.2006 passed by the Tribunal for realization of amount from the insurance company appears to be justified and no interference is called for with the same.
7. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.