1. Heard Sri Ajay Singh, learned counsel for petitioner.
2. Office report dated 24.12.2009 shows that notice sent by registered post to respondent nos.2 and 3, has neither received back nor acknowledgement has been received. Service is deemed sufficient.
3. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by order dated 25.3.2008 awarded a sum of Rs.1,53,100/- along with interest in favour of petitioner, and passed the following order :-
";kfpdk Lohdkj dh tkrh gSA foi{kh la[;k 2 dks vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd og ;kph la[;k 2 o ;kph la[;k 1 dks eqcfyx :i;k 153100 ¼,d yk[k frjiu gtkj ,d lkS :i;k ek=½rFkk bl ij ;kfpdk dsa fnukad ls Hkqxrku dh vafre frfFk rd 6 izfr'kr lk/kkj.k okf"kZd C;kt dh nj ls C;kt fu.kZ; ikfjr gksus ds ,d ekg dsa vanj vnk djsA mijksDr esa ls ;kph la[;k 1 ,d yk[k :i;s rFkk ;kph la[;k 2 ckdh jde ikus dh vf/kdkjh.kh gksxh vkSj mlh ds vuqikr esa C;kt ikus ds vf/kdkjh gksxsaA lkFk gh lkFk ;g Hkh vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd ;kph la[;k 2 dh jde mlds o;Ld gksus rd fdlh jk"Vªh; d`r cSda ftlesa C;ktnj vf/kd gks tek jgsxk ;kph la[;k 1 mls vius mij [kpZ ugh dj ldrhA foi{kh la[;k 2 dh ijfeV ugh gksus ds dkj.k foi{kh la[;k 1 ls jde olwyus dk vf/kdkj fn;k tkrk gSA ;fn foi{kh chek dEiuh pkgs rks mijksDr¼e; eksVj ekfyd ls olwy dj ldrh gSA"
4. The petitioner moved an application for release of money deposited by the company which has been declined on the ground that the amount deposited by Insurance Company cannot be released until the recovery is made from vehicle's owner in Misc. Case No.8/74/08 or the vehicle's owner deposits entire amount of compensation in the Court.
5. It is contended that such condition is illegal. Reliance has been placed in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Khursheeda Bano and others, 2009 (1) ACCD 34 (All), wherein para 4 reads as under :-
"Learned counsel has cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Challa Bharathamma and others, (2004) 8 SCC 517, to establish that the claim of the insurance company should be secured by the owner. We have no quarrel with such proposition. What we want to say is that unless and until an appropriate application in the selfsame proceeding is made by the insurance company for the purpose of recovery, the question of furnishing security by the owner cannot arise. Such situation is yet to ripe. At this stage, we are only concerned with the payment of compensation to the claimants which cannot be stalled and has got nothing to do with the dispute regarding liability between the owner and the insurance company. The sufferer is a third party. Moreover, in such judgment, the Division Bench of the Supreme Court has categorically held "considering the beneficial object of the Act, it would be proper for the insurer to satisfy the award, though in law it has no liability." In effect it is a stop-gap arrangement to satisfy the award as soon as it is passed. The judgment of 3 Judges' Bench of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and others, (2004) 3 SCC 297, also speaks in para 110 that the Tribunal can direct that the insurer is liable to be reimbursed by the insured for the compensation and other amounts which it has been compelled to pay to the third party under the award of the Tribunal. Therefore, the intention of the Legislature as well as the interpretation by the Supreme Court and different High Courts is well-settled to the extent that under no circumstances payment of compensation to the claimants will be stalled. Even at the cost of repetition we say, it has nothing to do with the dispute with regard to liability of owner or insurer, which can be considered in the the separate application in the selfsame cause or in an execution application in connection thereto to be initiated by the insurance company."
6. Apex Court has made it very clear that once compensation awarded is paid by Insurance Company and deposited with the Court, it has to be released to claimant and he cannot be made to wait till the matter between the vehicle's owner and Insurance Company is settled inter se. The law is very clear that in no circumstance payment of compensation of claimant will be stalled. It has nothing to do with the liability of owner or Insurance Company, which is separate aspect of the matter, for which claimant cannot be made to suffer.
7. The above exposition of law makes it clear that in no circumstance payment of compensation to the claimant can be stopped for any reason, what-so-ever, but that is what has been done by the Tribunal in the case in hand. The impugned order is patently erroneous, illegal and liable to be set aside.
8. The petition is allowed. The impugned order is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded to the court below. The Tribunal shall pass a fresh order in accordance with law and in the light of observations made above.
Order Date :- 10.7.2014 Mustaqeem.