CR-5554-2025 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 123 CR-5554-2025 Date of decision :20.08.2025 PUNJAB ROADWAYS TRANSPORT CORPORATION ... PETITIONER VERSUS NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Raman B. Garg, Advocate and Mr. Mayank Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Akhil Kamra, AAG, Punjab. **** PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL) Vide present revision petition, petitioner has challenged order dated 08.11.2024 whereby in execution petition filed by National Insurance Company, warrant of attachment of property of the judgment debtor/petitioner was ordered to be issued as judgment debtor/petitioner had failed to make the due payment. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was only liable to make payment to the extent of 1/3rd amount and remaining payment was to be paid by the driver as well as owner of bus. However, this contention raised on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be gone into for a simple reason that rights of parties stand crystalized by award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Moga vide award dated 10.08.2017, which has attained finality. While deciding issue No. 6, learned Tribunal has duly noticed that driver of MANOJ KUMAR 2025.08.25 18:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5554-2025 -2- offending vehicle i.e. respondent No. 2 Inderjit Singh was not possessing driving license and accordingly issue No. 6 was decided in favour of respondent No. 6 – Insurance Company. However, Insurance Company was asked satisfy award subject to recovery rights granted to it. In pursuant of those recovery rights granted to Insurance Company vide award dated 10.08.2017, after paying compensation to claimant, Insurance Company had filed execution wherein petitioner being one of the JDs appeared and paid 1/3rd amount claiming that its liabilities are to the extent of 1/3rd. 3. However, perusal of award shows no order has been passed vide award limiting the liability of petitioner to the extent of 1/3rd. Driver, owner of vehicle as well as present petitioner, they all were found liable to pay compensation jointly and severally. Therefore, no error with the approach of learned Executing Court in recovering amount from present petitioner can be found. No interference is warranted. However, it is made clear that petitioner shall be within his legal rights to recover amount from owner/driver of offending vehicle as per his legal rights in accordance with law. 4. Accordingly, present appeal is dismissed. 20.08.2025 (PARMOD GOYAL) manoj JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MANOJ KUMAR 2025.08.25 18:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document