Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J. - (1.) AWARD dated 20.12.2005 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jagadhri (hereinafter mentioned as the Tribunal) is under execution, the same having been upheld even upto Hon'ble Apex Court. On 3.12.2009, Hon'ble Apex Court had ordered as under: "During the hearing of this appeal, it was brought to our notice that the amount of compensation awarded in favour of the respondents has already been paid to them by the appellant -insurance company. Such being the position today, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal and interfere with the impugned order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in the exercise of our discretionary power under Article 136 of the Constitution. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. However, it will be open for the appellant -company to take appropriate steps against the owner of the vehicle in accordance with law for recovery of the amount of compensation. The question of law, if any, is kept open to be decided in an appropriate case." Once liberty had been granted to the insurer to take appropriate steps against the owner of the vehicle i.e. petitioner -objector to recover the amount of compensation in accordance with law, this remedy could have been availed by the insurance company only by approaching the Tribunal. This recourse was taken by the insurance company. Objection petition was preferred by the owner to such motion made by the insurance company before the Tribunal. This objection petition rightly was found to be of no merit in the interface of the orders of Hon'ble Apex Court.
(2.) CLAIM of the petitioner -objector that there was no question of granting liberty to the insurance company for recovery of the amount of compensation from the owners is totally mis -founded in the interface of clear orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Observations of the Executing Court while rejecting the objection petition of the petitioner -owner are to the following effect: "From the last paragraph of order dated 3.12.2009 of Hon'ble Apex Court, it is clear that appellant therein and applicant before this court i.e. insurance company, was given liberty to take appropriate steps against the owner of the vehicle i.e. the objector G.M. Haryana Roadways, Karnal Depot, Karnal, to recover the amount of compensation in accordance with law. With this liberty, insurance company had the remedy to approach the same tribunal which had passed the award so has been done in this case. If, the objector had any grievance against this order, it should have gone to Hon'ble Apex Court asking for its review, which has apparently not been done. This court being the executing court, cannot go into the legality of the order passed by Hon'ble Apex Court and has to execute it as it is in the absence of anything contrary to the same. In the given circumstances, this court find no merit in the objections filed by the objector, so, far rejected." It is strange that after orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India of 3.12.2009 and reinforcement of the same vide order dated 4.8.2012 of the Tribunal, the petitioner again invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court invoking provisions of supervisory powers of this Court under Section 227 of the Constitution of India. Filing of the present revision petition in view of the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, was totally uncalled for. The Tribunal has rightly made observation that if the petitioners were having any grievance against the orders of Hon'ble Apex Court, they could have moved for review thereof, but they did not adopt that course available to them, meaning thereby that they were to abide by the orders of the Hon'ble Apex Court and there was no reason for not doing so.
(3.) KEEPING in view the totality of facts and circumstances discussed above, the impugned order neither suffers from any factual nor legal error. Sequelly, affirming the impugned order, this petition being without any merit, is dismissed. It is high time that decision takers in the Government start taking firm and reasoned decisions regarding filing of cases in the courts so that funds of the State of Haryana are not frittered away in uncalled for litigation. Casual approach as is clearly reflected in filing of this revision petition, is to be avoided at all costs. Expenditure incurred in filing this revision petition be calculated at the level of the petitioner and be deducted from the salary of the officer who had taken final decision to file this petition.;