JUDGMENT Umeshwar Pandey, J.
1. Heard Sri S.K. Varma, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Siddhartha Varma for the revisionists and Sri A. B. Saran, learned Senior Advocate for the respondents.
2. The order under challenge in this revision is passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby it has been directed that before the release of the awarded money in favour of the claimants, the owner of the vehicle/insured shall furnish security of the said amount before the court.
3. The learned Counsel for the revisionists, while citing the case law of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur and Ors. , has tried to emphasise that in pursuance to the award given by the court below, the opposite-party insurer has already made the deposit of the awarded money and the release of that money in favour of the claimants cannot be made subject to the insured, owner of the vehicle furnishing security. It is for the insurer/opposite-party to recover that amount from the owner in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act itself treating as if the lis is in between the insurer and the insured. The insurer has, however, not to take the burden of filing a suit for such recovery of the money given under the award. The learned Counsel has also cited the case law of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Challa Bharathamma and Ors. 2005 (1) IAC 14 (SC) and Pramod Kumar Agrawal and Ors. v. Smt. Mushtari Begum and Ors. . It is further submitted on behalf of the revisionists that the court below, while passing the impugned order has wrongly directed filing of the security by the owner/insured before the release of the amount of award which is already under deposit made by the insurer before the court.
4. In reply to the aforesaid, the learned Counsel for the opposite-party Insurance Co. relied upon the case law of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanjappan and Ors. and has tried to emphasise that in this subsequent judgment, the Apex Court after following the Baljit Kaur's case (supra) has issued some directions as to the mode of recovery of the amount paid by the insurer and in that context it has been provided that before the release of the amount deposited before the court by the insurer, the court shall issue notice to the owner of the vehicle/insured to furnish security of the amount and after this security having been furnished by the insured, the money could be disbursed and released in favour of the claimants.
5. From the aforesaid case law as referred to by the learned Counsel for the parties, it would be evident that in spite of the fact that the insurer is not made liable to compensate the claimants under the policy under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, still the liability of payment, under the law as developed by the Apex Court in this context, has been assigned to the Insurance Co. At the same time the Insurance Co. has also been given liberty to recover the said amount from the insured within the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act itself and without taking the burden of filing a suit for that purpose. This principle of law was initially propounded in Baljit Kaur's case (supra) and it has been followed in the aforesaid cases referred to by the parties concerned. But in the subsequent cases more especially in Nanjappan's case (supra) it has also been observed that before releasing the amount under deposit before the Court the insured/owner of the vehicle shall be issued a notice and he shall be required to furnish security for the entire amount which the Insurance Co. will pay to the claimants. After that notice the court may direct the attachment of the offending vehicle as part of the security and could also pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. In case of default it shall be open to the court to direct realization of the amount from the insured/owner by disposal of security or from any other property or properties of the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, all these modes have been provided by the Apex Court for the insurer to make recovery from the insured. But from all these directions as given by the Apex Court, the purport is that the court shall not undermine the interest of the claimants for whose welfare the Supreme Court has been developing this law through all these cases even by interpreting otherwise the liability of the insurer within Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Thus, what is the crux of the matter in the present case is that the revisionists-claimants cannot be made to suffer even if the insured/owner of the vehicle does not furnish security or does not appear before the court in pursuance to the notice issued to him. The burden of recovering the amount within the provisions of the Act itself has been placed upon the insurer in the aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court. The claimants who have obtained the award in their favour have not been made to suffer through any observation made by the Supreme Court in these cases. Thus, in the aforesaid view of the matter, what I feel is that it would be just and proper if the court below is directed to first take resort to the issuance of notice to the insured/owner of the vehicle and thereafter only the money under deposit before the court should be released in favour of the claimants.
6. Accordingly, while disposing of this revision, it is hereby directed that the executing court below shall issue notice requiring upon the owner of the vehicle to furnish security amount in pursuance to the award made against him and thereafter when the notice is served, the amount under deposit shall be released in favour of the revisionists-claimants. The entire formalities of issuance of notice and service etc. should not take beyond three months from the date of service of a certified copy of this order.