2025:UHC:8081 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS AO/132/2019 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Mohd. Shafy proxy counsel for Mr. Vinay Bhatt, learned counsel for the appellant. 2. Mr. Suryakant Maithani, learned counsel for respondent no.4. 3. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 06.02.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (M.A.C.T.), Gopeshwar, Chamoli in M.A.C.P. No. 50 of 2016, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants/respondent nos. 1 to 3 was partly allowed and the Insurance Company was directed to pay a total amount of ₹16,92,400/- to the claimants. The Tribunal further directed that out of the awarded amount, ₹1,00,000/- be paid by the appellant/Insurance Company to the claimant, while remaining amount of ₹15,92,400/- was directed to be paid by the owner of the vehicle to the claimants. 4. Learned counsel for respondent no.4 would submit that during pendency of the present appeal, the claimants/ respondent nos. 1 to 3 and respondent no. 4 (owner of the vehicle) entered into a compromise settlement. The written copy of the compromise has been filed along with Miscellaneous Application (IA No. 6815 of 2020), supported by the affidavit of respondent no. 4, wherein it is stated that respondent no. 4, Shri Bhagwati Prasad Kimothi, has paid the entire awarded amount to the claimants on 22.04.2019 and no further dispute remains between them. 5. In compliance with the order dated 28.08.2025 passed by this Court, Smt. Champa Devi (claimant/respondent no.1) and Shri Bhagwati Prasad Kimothi (respondent no. 4) appeared in person through Video Conferencing. The respondent 2025:UHC:8081 no.4 has been identified by his counsel. 6. Upon interaction, Smt. Champa Devi, claimant/respondent no. 1, confirmed that she has received the entire compensation amount from respondent no. 4, and no outstanding dues remain. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company would submit since the entire compensation has been paid by respondent no. 4 to the claimants, nothing survives in this appeal. He further submitted that the appellant/Insurance Company had deposited ₹10,00,000/- before the concerned M.A.C.T. and the statutory deposit of ₹25,000/- before the Registry of this Court. Thus, he requested that the said deposits may be refunded in favour of the appellant/ Insurance Company. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company would submit that 8. Having considered the submissions made and upon perusal of the compromise affidavit, this Court is satisfied that the dispute between the claimants/respondent nos. 1 to 3 and respondent no. 4 has been amicably resolved, and that the claimants have been fully compensated in accordance with the award passed by the Tribunal. 9. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, it is directed that the amount lying before the Tribunal be released in favour of the appellant/Insurance Company. Further, the statutory amount of ₹25,000/- deposited in the Registry of this Court shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal for payment to the appellant/Insurance Company. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. 11. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Alok Mahra, J.) 11.09.2025 Mamta