Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gyanwati vs Joginder Singh And Another on 10 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049336
2024:PHHC:049336
CR-2173-2024 (O&M) - 1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
123 CR-2173-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision: 10.04.2024
Gyanwati ...Petitioner.
Versus
Joginder Singh and another ....Respondents.
***
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR
----
Present: Mr. Devender Kumar, Advocate
for the petitioner.
****
Sukhvinder Kaur, J.
By way of present revision petition, the petitioner has
challenged order dated 20.02.2024 (Annexure P-5), passed by Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Palwal (for short, 'the Tribunal'), vide which the
application dated 06.10.2023 moved by respondent No.2 for tendering of
the award amount as Rs.5,02,507/- subject to furnishing security by
judgment debtor No.1/ respondent No.1 and the adequate security from
respondent No.1 before release the award amount was allowed.
2. The brief facts for adjudication of the present revision petition
are that the petitioner file a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor
Vehicle Act on account of death of her husband, which was partly accepted
vide award dated 17.08.2023 passed by the Tribunal. Total compensation of
Rs.5,00,000/- was awarded to the petitioner and while holding that
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049336
2024:PHHC:049336
CR-2173-2024 (O&M) - 2-
respondent No.1-owner and driver have violated the terms and condition of
the insurance policy, decided issue No.3 was in favour of insurance
company and it was absolved from the liability. It was also observed in the
award that respondent insurance company will firstly pay the compensation
amount to the petitioner and then to recover the said amount from
respondent No.1-owner of the offending vehicle, in accordance with law.
3. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed execution
application No.298 of 2023 before the Executing Court. During pendency of
the said execution application respondent No.2 filed an application dated
06.10.2023 before the Executing Court, Palwal for tendering of the award
amount i.e. Rs.5,02,507/- vide cheque No.129568 dated 10.09.2023 on
behalf of respondent No.2, subject to furnishing security by judgment
debtor/ respondent No.1-Joginder Singh owner of the offending motorcycle
No.HR-50G-9009, before releasing the said amount to the petitioner. In the
meantime, the petitioner also moved an application for releasing the cheque
amount already deposited by respondent No.2 before Executing Court.
Respondent No.2 filed reply to the said application. Thereafter, arguments
were heard by the Executing Court/ the Tribunal, Palwal and vide common
order dated 20.02.2024 both the aforesaid applications were decided and it
was held that before releasing of the amount deposited by the Insurance
Company i.e. respondent No.2, the adequate security must be furnished for
the entire amount which the insurer will pay to the petitioner-claimant. The
directions for issuance of fresh cheque in favour of the petitioner was also
given on furnishing of the adequate security for the entire amount.
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049336
2024:PHHC:049336
CR-2173-2024 (O&M) - 3-
4. Being aggrieved against the order dated 20.02.2024, the
petitioner has been filed the present revision petition.
5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner has contended that
the Executing Court, Palwal, while passing the impugned order has wrongly
held that the adequate security is to be furnished since the person claiming
the compensation amount and the person ultimately held responsible to pay
the said amount are from the same family and are residing in the same
house. He has argued that the petitioner/ claimant and respondent No.1 have
their own individual rights and responsibilities. He has submitted that this
fact has also not been considered by the Executing Court while passing the
impugned order that the Tribunal, while allowing the compensation in her
favour has given the right of recovery of amount of compensation from
respondent No.1-owner of the vehicle and the petitioner is entitled for the
amount as awarded by the Tribunal. Awarded amount has already been
deposited by the Insurance Company which is lying deposited with the
Court since 2023 and only because of non-furnishing of the security by
respondent No.1, the said amount has not been released so far to the
petitioner, who is an old age lady about 73 years and is in dire need of
money for her survival in her old age. He has urged that the Tribunal, while
passing the award in favour of the petitioner/ claimant did not impose any
such condition for the release of amount, but the Executing Court vide the
impugned order dated 20.02.2024, in an arbitrary manner has allowed the
application of respondent No.2-Insurance Company, regarding furnishing
security by respondent No.1.
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049336
2024:PHHC:049336
CR-2173-2024 (O&M) - 4-
6. Petitioner Gyanwati is the mother of respondents No.1 and 2.
Respondent No.1 was the driver and respondent No.2 was the owner of the
offending vehicle on which deceased Partap Singh was a pillion rider and
had died in the accident in question. The perusal of the award dated
17.08.2023 passed by the Tribunal reveals that the findings on issue No.3,
regarding violating the terms and condition of the insurance policy, was
decided in favour of the Insurance Company and it was held that as
respondents No.1 and 2 had violated the terms and condition of the
insurance policy, so, the Insurance Company was granted the right to
recover the amount of compensation from the owner of the vehicle i.e.
respondent No.2. The notice, which was issued to Joginder Singh in the
execution application was received back with the report that his mother
Gyanwati had informed that Joginder Singh was not in the house and she
herself refused to receive the summons. The summons, which were sent by
way of registered post were shown to have been delivered to the addressee.
7. In the peculiar facts of the case, the Executing Court has rightly
observed that since the persons claiming compensation amount and the
person ultimately had liable to pay the said amount, are from the same
family and are residing in the same house, so the adequate security is
required to be furnished, as the Insurance Company is making the payment
in the interregnum. It has been rightly held that before releasing the amount
deposited by the Insurance Company, the adequate security must be
furnished for the entire amount which the insurer, would pay to the
claimant, so that the execution petition filed by the Insurance Company
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049336
2024:PHHC:049336
CR-2173-2024 (O&M) - 5-
could be satisfied.
8. Thus, there being no illegality or infirmity in the impugned
order, no interference therewith is called for while exercising the revisional
jurisdiction. The present revision petition being bereft of any merits stands
dismissed.
9. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of
accordingly.
(SUKHVINDER KAUR)
JUDGE
10.04.2024.
komal
Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/ No
Whether Reportable : Yes/ No
5 of 5
