1. In the instant matter, respondent No.3 could not be served and Mr. Sunil B. Parikh, learned advocate for appplicant states that respondent No.3 is owner of the vehicle and the insured and so far as the Civil Application for stay is concerned, his presence may not be required as the respondent No.1- the original-claimant has been served.
2. None appeared for respondent No.1, the original claimant.
3. Having considered the earlier order dated 30.01.2012 and considered the submission by Mr. Parikh, learned advocate for the applicant-appellant that the said order has been complied with and the amount awarded by this Court has already been deposited.
4. The Civil application for stay deserves to be disposed of with the directions that the interim stay earlier granted shall be continue till the final disposal of the appeal.
Mr.
Parikh, learned advocate for the appilacant-appellant submitted that pursuant to the order dated 30.01.2012, Rs.1,33,000/- came to be deposited with proportionate costs and interest which has been invested by the Tribunal in any nationalized Bank in F.D.R as provided in the said order. He has also stated that the amount Rs. 1,15,000/- has also been desposited in the Tribunal which, pursuant to order dated 30.01.2012 was permitted to be withdrawn by the claimant by account payee cheque accordingly.
The instant application stand disposed of and the stay earlier granted shall continue till the pendency of the appeal on the same terms and conditions.
(J.C.UPADHYAYA,J.) Braj.
Top