- (1.) ASHOK Bhushan, J. Heard Sri Hari Pratap Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri A. C. Nigam learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2. Notices were issued to respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 by registered post on 26th March, 2007. Although respondent No. 2 has put in appearance but respondents No. 3 and 4 have not appeared.
(2.) BY this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 12th January, 2007, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal rejecting the application of the petitioners for release of the compensation amount as awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Case No. 582 of 2004, Smt. Sheela Devi and others v. Rajesh Kumar Gupta and others, decided on 23rd March, 2006. Brief facts of the case for deciding the issue raised in the writ petition are : a claim petition being Claim Petition No. 582 of 2o04 was filed by the petitioners before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal claiming compensation on account of death of husband of petitioner No. 1, late Heera Lal Chaudhary. The claim petition was allowed by award dated 23rd March, 2006 awarding total amount of Rs. 4,65,541. The insurance company deposited the total amount on 10th July, 2006 by cheque before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The petitioners, who are claimants, moved an application for release of the aforesaid amount by application dated 20th July, 2006. The insurance company filed objection against release of the amount to the effect that without furnishing security by vehicle owner, the- awarded amount could not be released in favour of the petitioners. Learned Additional District Judge by the impugned order dated 12th January, 2007 accepted the objection of the insurance company and rejected the application of the petitioners. Against the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, present writ petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioners, challenging the order, contended that the fact that owner has not appeared or filed security on the application of insurance company for recovering the amount from owner cannot come in the way of the petitioners from payment of the compensation amount. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is open for the insurance company to take steps for recovery of the amount from owner and obtain security but the payment of the amount to the petitioners cannot be refused. Reliance has been placed by counsel for the petitioners on judgment of the Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanjappan and others, AIR 2004 SC 1630 : 2004 (2) AWC 1839 (SC) and judgments of this Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. , Farrukhabad v. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Farrukhabad and others, 2006 (3) TAG 118 and Smt. Bhuri and others v. Smt. Shobha Rani and others, 2007 (1) TAG 20.
(3.) SRI A. C. Nigam, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2, contended that in view of judgment of the Apex Court in M/s. National Insurance Co. Limited v. Baljit Kaur and others, 2004 (1) TAC 366 : 2o04 (1) AWC 565 (SC) and judgment of the Apex Court in Framed Kumar Agrawal and another v. Mushtari Begum (Smt.) and others, (2004) 8 SCC 667 : 2004 (4) AWC 2901 (SC), the amount can be released only when owner furnishes security for the entire amount, which is to be paid to the petitioners-claimants. I have considered the submissions and perused the record.;