RANJIT SINGH, J. - (1.) This order will dispose of FAO No.1003 and 1038 of 1986 as they arise out of the same judgment. Counsel for respondent No.5 (in FAO No.1003 of 1986) has submitted that he has already informed his client that he would not be putting in appearance on their behalf in future. The counsel further says that he has been informed that respondent No.5 would make some alternate arrangement. Accordingly, learned counsel seeks permission to withdraw from the case. He is permitted to do so.
(2.) FAO No.1003 of 1986 has been filed by the Fazilka Dabwali Transport Company Private Limited and Driver of the Bus impugning the order of the Tribunal whereby the claimants were granted compensation of Rs.5,76,000.00. While awarding the said compensation, the Tribunal had held that the liability of the Insurance Company was limited to Rs.1,50,000.00 and the remaining amount of compensation was to be paid by the appellants. This appeal was admitted on 8.12.1986 and notice regarding stay was issued. On 18.3.1987 this Court made the following order:- "It is agreed between the learned counsel for the parties that the appellant shall pay the decretal amount minus the amount payable by the Insurance Company in monthly instalments of Rs.12,000.00 each. The amount of Rs.10,000.00 will be adjusted towards the principal and Rs.2,000.00 towards the interest. In case the appellant fails to pay any instalment, the whole of the balance amount shall become payable at once. The first instalment shall be paid by 20.4.1987 by bank draft and subsequent instalments by 20th of each subsequent month. Attachment shall continue. However, the property be not auctioned till further orders. The amount be paid to the claimant-respondents in case they furnish security in the Executing Court to its satisfaction. The security be accepted after notice to the appellant. Civil Miscellaneous Application stands disposed of accordingly."
(3.) This apparently shows that on an execution application filed by the claimants, attachment order had followed whereby the appellants were put to term to pay the amount found due against them by way of monthly instalments as noticed in the order reproduced above. Counsel for the parties have jointly stated before me that the instalments as mentioned in the order had been paid and accordingly the amount payable by the appellants has been realized. Counsel for the respondent-claimants herein points out that the Insurance Company was held liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000.00 whereas in terms of the Insurance Policy, the liability of Company was limited to Rs.50,000.00 only. She further submits that on an application moved by the Insurance Company in the FAO, the execution of the award qua Insurance Company beyond Rs.50,000.00 was stayed on 19/12/1986. The counsel accordingly points out that a sum of Rs.1 lac, which was to be paid by the Insurance Company, has still not been paid to the claimants. Counsel for the appellants, on the other hand, has very fairly drawn my attention to a judgment in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Keshav Bahadur and Ors., JT 2004 (2) SC 282 to contend that the liability of the Insurance Company would be limited to Rs.50,000.00 in view of the terms of the insurance policy. It is thus obvious that the remaining sum of Rs.1 lac would also be required to be paid by the appellants to the claimants.;