IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CR-5385 of 2023 (O&M) Date of Decision:05.03.2025 Anita alias Jagjit Kaur and others .....Pe11oners Vs. Om Prakash and another .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Dr. Pankaj Nanhera, Advocate and Mr. Nin Verma, Advocate for the peoners. Mr. Sahil Bhutani, Advocate for Mr. Paul S. Saini, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. By way of this Civil Revision filed under Arcle 227 of the Constuon of India, peoners pray for se+ng aside the order dated 18.08.2023 (Annexure P.1) passed by learned Addional District Judge, Hisar, direcng the peoners to return the amount of ₹4,88,554/- to respondent No.2. 2. On perusal of the paper book, it emerges that in a claim peon filed under Secon 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, compensaon of ₹2,16,000/-, along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of peon ll realisaon, was allowed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar in favour of peoner – Smt. Anita and others vide Award dated 09.04.1997 (Annexure P.3). The Insurance Company challenged the said award before this Court by filing FAO No.1349 of 1997 (O&M); whereas the claimants i.e. peoners filed cross objecons. Vide order dated 22.07.2014 (Annexure P.5), a co-ordinate Bench of this Court allowed the Page No.1 out of 3 pages RENU 2025.03.06 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh appeal of the Insurance Company and dismissed the cross-objecons of claimants, holding that liability of the Insurance Company was only to the extent of ₹50,000/-. The operave part of the order is as under:- “3. The appeal is allowed and its liability is restricted to `50,000/-. The cross objecon is dismissed for the reasons referred to above. The amount as awarded by the Tribunal appears to have been directed by the Division Bench to be deposited in naonalized bank. The amount deposited shall be permiGed to be withdrawn by the insurer to the extent to which it is in excess of `50,000/- with interest which is permiGed through this award. The interest received from the bank by the claimants may be credited towards liability for the interest for `50,000/- which has been assessed and if there is any poron of the principal which is sll not discharged, the amount in deposit shall be subject to an adjudicaon of the principal as assessed.” 3. Peoners filed Special Leave Peon No.22357 of 2014 before Hon'ble Supreme Court but the same was dismissed on 29.08.2014 vide Annexure P.6. 4. The Insurance Company – respondent No.2 herein then moved an applicaon Annexure P.2 for issuance of the refund voucher regarding the excess amount received by the claimants. 5. The learned Tribunal/ learned Addional District Judge, Hisar, passed the following order dated 18.08.2023 on the afore-said applicaon, which has been assailed in this revision, reads as under:- “Today case was fixed for arguments. Arguments heard. A perusal of the case file reveals that an amount of Rs.4,88,554/- has been paid to Smt. Jagjit Kaur @ Anita wife of Diwan Singh where she was only entled to Rs.50,000/- plus interest at the rate of 7.5% from 10.01.1996 to 05.11.1997 i.e. Rs.7000/- and i.e. Rs.57,000/- in total. Since, vide order dated 22.07.2014 passed in FAO No.1349 of 1997 the Hon’ble High Court has observed that the claimant was entled only to Rs.50,000/- plus interest from the date of filing of the peon ll actual payment. Since, the claimant was only entled for Rs.57,000/-, therefore, the claimant Smt. Page No.2 out of 3 pages RENU 2025.03.06 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Jagjit Kaur @ Anita is liable to refund the excess amount of Rs.4,88,554/- received by her as interest from the bank. Let, the aforesaid amount be deposited in the court on 04.09.2023.” 6. It is contended by learned counsel that learned Addional District Judge has ordered the peoner to refund the amount without considering her financial condion. 7. There is no merit in the contenon. 8. It is conceded by learned counsel that this High Court vide order dated 22.07.2014 (Annexure P.5) had confined the compensaon payable to the peoners to the extent of ₹50,000/- only and had further directed that rest of the amount was to be returned to the Insurance Company. Special Leave Peon filed by the peoners against the order of this Court has already been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 9. In the afore-said facts and circumstances, it does not lie in the mouth of the peoners to contend that they are not in a posion to refund the amount. 10. This Court does not find any merit in the peon simply on the ground that the peoners are not in financial posion to pay the same. The Court concerned shall proceed further in accordance with law for effecng the recovery. No Merits. Dismissed. March 05, 2025 ( DEEPAK GUPTA ) renu JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Page No.3 out of 3 pages RENU 2025.03.06 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh