AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ajay Rastogi, J.—Petitioners are claimants assailing order dt. 26/9/06 passed by learned court below on misc. application of the insurer with the grievance that amount could be disbursed to the claimants only after security is furnished by owner of the offending vehicle. In absence whereof, it will be difficult for the insurer to get its money recovered since liability has been fastened upon the owner of the vehicle.
Learned court below allowed their application vide order Ann.3 dt. 26th September, 2006 with the direction that money may be disbursed to the claimants only after owner furnished a security of the said amount.
Counsel for petitioner submits that despite award has attained finality and the money has been deposited by the insurer, but it has not been disbursed on the premise that owner of the offending vehicle is not traceable and in absence of surety of the said amount being furnished by owner of the vehicle who is not within the domain/control of the claimants they are being deprived of their compensation which has been determined by the Tribunal after due adjudication.
Since this controversy has already been dealt with by this Court in Kumari Nargis v. Karan Singh and Ors., decided on 22nd August, 2006, which has also been considered by Co-ordinate Bench in Smt. Manju and Ors. v. Addl. District and Session Judge and Ors. 2006 5 WLC 791. Taking note thereof, controversy does not remain res integra.
Consequently, writ petition stands allowed. Order Ann. 3 dt. 26th September, 2006 is hereby quashed and set aside. Learned court below is directed to disburse the amount of compensation in terms of award dt. 8/12/05 forthwith. Copy of this order be sent to the learned trial court for necessary compliance.