Umeshwar Pandey, J. - (1.) Heard Sri S.K. Varma, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Siddhartha Varma for the revisionists and Sri A.B. Saran, learned Senior Advocate for the respondents.
(2.) The order under challenge in this revision is passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby it has been directed that before the release of the awarded money in favour of the claimants, the owner of the vehicle/insured shall furnish security of the said amount before the Court.
(3.) The learned Counsel for the revisionists, while citing the case law of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur and others has tried to emphasise that in pursuance to the award given by the Court below, the opposite-party insurer has already made the deposit of the awarded money and the release of that money in favour of the claimants cannot be made subject to the insured, owner of the vehicle furnishing security. It is for the insurer/ opposite-party to recover that amount from the owner in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act itself treating as if the lis is in between the insurer and the insured. The insurer has, however, not to take the burden of filing a suit for such recovery of the money given under the award. The learned Counsel has also cited the case law of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Challa Bharathamma and others and Pramod Kumar Agrawal and others v. Smt. Mushtari Begum and others. It is further submitted on behalf of the revisionists that the Court below, while passing the impugned order has wrongly directed filing of the security by the owner/ insured before the release of the amount of award which is already under deposit made by the insurer before the Court.;