JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.—

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals involving common questions of law and fact were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. We would, however, notice the fact of the matter from CA @ Special Leave Petition (C) No.3372 of 2007.

On or about 14.7.1999, respondent No.3 was traveling in a bus bearing Registration No.PB-23-0189 which met with an accident as a result of which the deceased, Sanjay Kumar, got injured and while being taken to the hospital, he succumbed thereto. The said bus was owned by New Patiala Bus Service (Regd.) Sirhind, the respondent No.4 herein.

Legal representatives of the deceased filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal which by its order dated 4.12.2001 awarded a sum of Rs.2,68,800 by way of compensation. The learned Tribunal held that the driver of the bus had not been possessing a valid driving licence. The primary liability to pay the said amount was held to be that of respondent No.3 and 4, the driver and owner of the bus. The appellant was directed to deposit the amount directing that the company may recover the same from respondent Nos.3 and 4. Pursuant to the said observations, the appellant company made payments to the claimants on or about 15.3.2002 by depositing a sum of Rs.3,03,552/- by cheque.

4. On or about 8.5.2002 in terms of the order of the Tribunal, an Execution Petition was filed, stating :

“11. That in the claim petition No.82-T/99/26.9.2000 titled as Kusum widown of Sanjay Kumar and others Vs. Raghbir Singh alias Prince and others, the Hon’ble Court was pleased to allow the claim petition partly on 4.12.2001 that the claimants are held entitled to Rs.2,68,800/- as compensation to be shared equally by them. The claimants are also entitled to interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of claim application till its actual realization. Though the primary liability to pay the amount of compensation is that of respondent No.1 and 2 jointly and severally, however, it will also be open to the Claimants to recover the same from Respondent No.3 Insurance Company. As already held above, the insurance company would be at liberty to recover the same from Respondent No.1 and 2 in terms already mentioned in the preceding paragraphs.

12. That as per the directions of this Hon’ble Court, the DH/Applicant. Insurance Company has deposited Rs.3,03,552/- in the Hon’ble Court on 30.3.2002 and DRO of this amount has also been issued by this Hon’ble Court.

13. That as per the terms and conditions of the award, the DH/Applicant is entitled to recover the deposited amount of Rs.3,03,552/- along with 9% interest on the deposited amount from 31.3.2002 onwards.

14. That the JDs/Respondents have not paid even single penny to the Claimants or to the DH/Applicant so far.

15. Hence, this execution application and it is prayed that the execution application may please be accepted. The JDs/Respondents may kindly be directed to pay the amount of Rs.3,03,552/- along with future interest at the rate of 12% on the deposited amount till its actual realization failing which the property of the JDs/Respondents may be attached, auctioned to satisfy the award amount and/or JDs/Respondents in the civil person as per law.”

5. On receiving the said notice, the respondent No.3 by filing an objection to the said Execution Petition raised a question that the said Execution Petition was not maintainable and, in fact, a civil suit is required to be filed for recovery of the amount. The said objection of Respondent No.4 was sustained by the Executing Court by a judgment and order dated 12.6.2003, holding :

“I have considered the aforesaid case law cited at the bar. Authority cited as un-reported Judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, cited by the learned counsel for Insurance Company - knows decree-holder is not applicable to the facts of the case in hand. In this case, liability of insurance company was limited to the extent of