Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) IN spite of sufficient service, no one has appeared on behalf of contesting Respondents.
(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the Petitioner -insurance company. This is a strange case. The Respondents' claim for compensation under Motor Vehicles Act was decided on 13.12.1994 by I Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad in MAC No. 217 of 1988, Sharifan v. Iqbal. Insurance Company was directed to pay the entire awarded amount of Rs. 151,400/ - with 11% per annum interest since the date of petition till the date of actual payment. It was further directed that in case payment was not made within three months, the rate of interest would be 15%. Copy of the said judgment is Annexure -I to the writ petition. How the amount was to be apportioned among different claimants was not provided for in the operative portion of the judgment. It appears that either some application was given or the court by itself realised the mistake and passed the order of apportionment on 27.01.1995. The copy of the said order is Annexure -II to the writ petition. However, at the top of the said judgment, it is mentioned as follows: judgment retyped as per order of the court dated 27.01.1995.
(3.) THEREAFTER , almost entire judgment, which was delivered on 13.12.1994 was reproduced giving details of the claim, facts, issues and findings. The court completely fails to understand that what was the need of passing another judgment. Only an order directing apportionment of the award of compensation could be passed.;