1 CGHC010273632022 2026:CGHC:40908 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 564 of 2022 1 - Akhbari Prashad Patel S/o Shri Gobardhan Prashad Patel Aged About 64 Years Caste- Kunbi, Occupation- Service, Residence Of Govindpur, Police Station Chandora, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ramlal S/o Rambilas Aged About 30 Years Caste-Kahirwar, Occupation- Driver, R/o Gumdand, Police Station Chandora, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioners versus 1 - Ghurpatiya W/o Late Ramsant Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Dandhkarva, Police Station Chandora, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Shailesh S/o Late Ramsant Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Dandhkarva, Police Station Chandora, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Kamlesh W/o Late Ramsant Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Dandhkarva, Police Station Chandora, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Tiwari, Advocate For Respondents : None VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.09.26 16:11:46 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board 18/09/2026 Heard. 1. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioners against the impugned order dated 14.06.2022, passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pratappur, District Surajpur, in Case No. 41/2012, whereby the application filed by the petitioners for refund of the amount of Rs. 2 lakhs deposited by them pursuant to the award dated 25.07.2013 passed by learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pratappur, District Surajpur, in MACT Case No. 41/2012 and in compliance of the order dated 05.08.2014, passed by coordinate bench of this Court in MAC No. 944 of 2013, has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that, the petitioners were non-applicants before the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pratappur in MACT Case No. 41/2012. The respondents were the claimants, who have prosecuted a claim case for compensation of Rs. 6,13,500/- towards death of the husband of claimant No.1 and father of claimants No. 2 and 3. It was alleged in the claim case that, on 16.05.2010, when the deceased Ramsant was returning from grocery shop, near Revti culvert, the alleged offending vehicle Tractor bearing registration No. CG 15 A 2240 and Trolley bearing registration No. CG 15 A 2242 dashed the deceased by rash and negligent driving by its driver. By the said accident, the deceased Ramsant died. In the claim case, the non-applicants/ petitioners denied the involvement of their vehicle and specifically 3 stated that their vehicle i.e. the tractor and the trolley bearing the aforesaid registration numbers was parked in their garage and no accident was occurred from that vehicle. The deceased Ramsant was suffering from abdominal disease and he underwent surgery for the same. He died due to septicemia and not by accident. They denied their liability to pay the compensation as there was no accident occurred by their vehicle. ******* The learned claims tribunal, after conclusion of the trial of the claim case, passed an award on 25.07.2013 and awarded an amount of Rs. 3,21,000/- as compensation in favour of the claimants and against the non-applicants. The said award dated 25.07.2013 was challenged by the non-applicants before this Court by filing their appeal bearing MAC No. 944 of 2013. In the said appeal, on 05.08.2014, an interim order was passed in favour of the petitioners/appellants therein that appellants on depositing a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs before the learned claims tribunal, recovery of the remaining part of the awarded amount shall remain stayed. The claimants were permitted to withdraw the amount deposited by the petitioners/appellants therein on furnishing the security. In compliance of the order dated 05.08.2014, the petitioners deposited the said amount of Rs. 2 lakhs before the learned claims tribunal, which were withdrawn by the respondents on furnishing security on 05.05.2015. ******* He would further submit that the said MAC No. 944 of 2013 came up for hearing before the coordinate bench of this Court and vide order dated 16.03.2020, the appeal filed by the petitioners is 4 allowed and the impugned award dated 25.07.2013 is set aside holding that the vehicle of the petitioners i.e. the tractor and the trolley of the aforesaid registration numbers were not involved in the accident and the claimants have failed to prove that the deceased died due to accidental injuries. After the order dated 16.03.2020, the petitioners filed an application under Order 21 Rule 11 of CPC for refund of their deposited amount as the impugned award under which they deposited the amount is set aside and there is no liability upon them to pay the compensation. Notices were issued to the respondents and after hearing the parties, the learned claims tribunal rejected the application filed by the petitioners by saying that in the order dated 16.03.2020, passed in MAC No. 944 of 2013, there is no direction for refund of the amount deposited by the petitioners, therefore, the same cannot be ordered for its refund. Consequently, the execution proceeding has also been closed. ******* He would further submit that, once the petitioners have discharged from their liability to pay compensation, the amount deposited in compliance of the award dated 25.07.2013 and order passed in MAC No. 944 of 2013 dated 05.08.2014 should have been refunded to the petitioners, even though there is no specific direction in the order dated 16.03.2020, passed in MAC No. 944 of 2013. The refund of the deposited amount is a natural consequence after setting aside of the award dated 25.07.2013. While passing the interim order dated 05.08.2014, it was directed that the claimants are entitled to receive the amount on furnishing security and thereby this Court also considered the refund aspect of the case, if ultimately the appeal 5 would be allowed and ordered for furnishing security. The very object of furnishing security to secure the refund of the deposited amount and the claimants have also furnished their bond that they will refund the same, if the occasion so arises. As on date, there is no liability against the petitioners to pay compensation, yet their amount is lying with the respondents, for which the petitioners are entitled to recover the same from them. The learned claims tribunal has erred in rejecting the application on the ground that there is no direction in the order passed by this Court in the appeal, therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and the learned Executing Court may be directed to proceed in the application filed by the petitioners for refund of their deposited amount. 3. None for the respondents, though the notices are reported to be served upon them. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 5. Passing of the award dated 25.07.2013 by the learned claims tribunal, challenged the same in the MAC No. 944 of 2013 before this Court and setting aside the award dated 25.07.2013 by the order dated 16.03.2020 and also the interim order dated 05.08.2014, passed by coordinate bench of this Court in the MAC No. 944 of 2013 are undisputed facts in the present case. While passing the interim order dated 05.08.2014, in MAC No. 944 of 2013, it has been ordered that:- 6 ******* “Appellants on depositing a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs before the tribunal recovery of the remaining part of the award shall remain stayed. ******* Learned counsel for the appellants prays for two months time to deposit the same. ******* He is granted two months time to deposit the same. ******* Claimants shall be entitled to receive the amount on furnishing the security.” 6. While withdrawing the amount on 05.05.2015, deposited by the petitioners, the respondents has submitted their bonds that they received the amount under the terms of the order dated 05.08.2014 and the contents of their bonds are necessary to note here, which reads as under:- ******* " हम घुरपतिया पति स्व० र मसन्, शैलेशै आ० स्व० र मसन् एव कमलेशै आ० स्व० र मसन् सभी जा ति हरिरजान तिनव स ग्रा म डां डांकरव था न चन्दौ"र हसले प्र पपर जिजाले - स%रजापर (छ०ग०) क ह( उक् प्रकरण म, म ननया उच्च न्या या लेया ति.ले सपर क अपले प्रकरण क्र० 944/13 म, प रिर आदौशै दिदौन क 5-8-14 क अनस र अन वदौक अक.र पटेले द्वा र जाम र शिशै 200000 रुपया क6 तिनम्न शै8 क अधीन प्र प् कर ह( :- {1} याह तिक म ननया उच्चन्या या लेया ति.ले सपर क समस् आदौशै; एव शै8 क प लेन करन ह या र ह। {2} याह तिक शै8 क उल्लेघुन तिकया जा न पर 200000 रुपया क दौनदौ र रह,ग।" 7. Admittedly, the vehicle of the present petitioners were not involved in the accident and the death of the deceased was not the accidental death and thereby there is no liability upon the petitioners to pay the compensation and the claimants are not entitled to receive any 7 compensation from the petitioners, yet the amount of Rs. 2 lakhs is lying with the respondents without there being any liability. There is no material on record that the order dated 16.03.2020, passed in MAC No. 944 of 2013 by this Court is further challenged in any higher forum or modified or set aside in any subsequent proceeding. Thus the said order dated 16.03.2020 attained its finality, by which the petitioners have been exonerated from their liability. 8. Having regard to the aforesaid undisputed facts and the terms and conditions of the order dated 05.08.2014 passed in MAC No. 944 of 2013, this Court is of the considered view that the amount of Rs.2 lakhs deposited by the petitioners pursuant to the interim order dated 05.08.2014 cannot be retained by the respondents after the award dated 25.07.2013 has been set aside in its entirety and the petitioners have been exonerated from the liability to pay any compensation. The furnishing of security by the respondents at the time of withdrawal of the deposited amount was precisely to secure the amount so withdrawn, subject to the final outcome of the appeal. Therefore, merely because no specific direction for refund was incorporated in the final order dated 16.03.2020, it cannot be said that the petitioners have forfeited their right to seek refund of the amount deposited by them pursuant to the interim order. The learned Claims Tribunal, therefore, was not justified in rejecting the application solely on the ground that there was no specific direction in the order dated 16.03.2020 for refund of the deposited amount. 9. Consequently, the present petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 14.06.2022 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident 8 Claims Tribunal, Pratappur, District Surajpur, in Case No.41/2012 is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the learned Claims Tribunal to proceed further on the application filed by the petitioners for refund of the amount of Rs.2 lakhs in accordance with law, after taking into consideration the bonds/security furnished by the respondents at the time of withdrawal of the said amount and the order dated 16.03.2020 passed in MAC No.944 of 2013. The learned Claims Tribunal shall pass an appropriate order in accordance with law after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. 10. The parties are directed to appear before the learned claims tribunal on 13th October, 2026. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved