AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A S Bopanna
The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 06.11.2009 passed in Misc. No. 1/2008. which is impugned at Annexure-A to the petition. The petitioner has also assailed the judgment and award dated 01.03.2007 passed in MVC No. 7162/2005. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the petition papers. Notice to respondents No. 1 and 2 has been held sufficient and there is no representation on behalf of the respondents.
The petitioner Insurance Company was respondent No. 1 in MVC No. 7162/2005. The said claim petition was disposed of on 01.03.2007 awarding the compensation of Rs. 2,38,500/ with interest. One of the contentions, which had been put forth by the petitioner while opposing the claim petition is that the vehicle bearing No. KA 13 M 1940 in fact was not involved in the accident, but has been falsely implicated. Ultimately, since no evidence had been tendered on behalf of the respondent-Insurance Company, the judgment and award came to be passed. The petitioner-Insurance Company construing the same as one having been passed exparte against them filed a Misc. Petition No. 1/2008. The said petition is still pending consideration before the trial Court. In the said Misc. Petition No. 1/2008, the petitioner herein also filed an application u/s 151 of CPC. the said application came to be rejected. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.
The petitioner-Insurance Company contends that the Court below was not justified in rejecting the application, since if in the meanwhile, the award amount is withdrawn by the respondents, the petitioner-Insurance Company would be put. to prejudice and there would be loss of public money.
This Court while ordering notice to the respondents on 08.12.2009. had granted interim order of stay of the judgment and award passed in MVC No. 7162/2005, subject to the condition that the amount be deposited before the Tribunal. The amount is said to have been deposited before the Tribunal. The issue therefore is as to whether any prejudice would be caused to the petitioner, if the respondents withdraw the said amount, which is deposited before the Tribunal. In that regard, as to whether any stay ought to have been granted by the Court below against the operation of the judgment and award passed in MVC No. 7162/2005.
It is no doubt true that the petitioner was impleaded as one of the respondents in MVC No. 7162/2005 and even assuming for a moment that they had not properly defended the said claim petition, the Misc. Petition which has been filed thereafter is in any event pending before the Tribunal. It is pending consideration of the same, the interim order was sought. If the interim order is not granted by the Tribunal in the Misc. Petition and if in the meanwhile, any amount is withdrawn by the respondents, in fact the proceedings itself would be infructuous and in any event, since the Insurance Company has raised a serious issue with regard to the involvement. of the vehicle itself, the Tribunal would have to take a decision one way or the other in Misc. No. 1/2008 on its merits. Therefore, pending consideration of the same before the Tribunal, the amount cannot be permitted to be withdrawn. Hence, to the said extent, the Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the application filed u/s 151 of CPC seeking grant of stay. Consequently, the order dated 06.11.2009 is set aside. The application filed in Misc. No. 1/2008 seeking stay of the judgment and award dated 01.03.2007 in MVC No. 7162/2005 is allowed. The Tribunal is directed to consider and dispose of Misc. No. 1/2008 on its merits. In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of, with no order as to costs.