JUDGMENT 1. - Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner I do not find it to be a fit case where an interference is to be made in the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur dated 15.4.1999. The award which is challenged by the petitioner in this petition is appealable. When the award is appealable, this petition filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited is wholly misconceived, misplaced and ill-advised. The petitioner has made totally a wrong statement of fact in para No.11 that the petitioner has no other alternative efficacious remedy except to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. It is not the law that in every case this Court is to permit the Insurance Company to file the petition directly in this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution circumventing the statutory remedy of appeal as available. Even if it is taken though nothing finally can be said in view of the ground on which I propose to dismiss this petition that the Tribunal has awarded the compensation in total disregard to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and interpretation thereof rendered by the Supreme Court I feel (sic fail ?) to see any justification in this approach of the Insurance Company to circumvent the statutory remedy of appeal available to it. Insurance Company should not act and exhibit as an ordinary litigant. Insurance Company insured the vehicles and now statutorily the vehicles are to be compulsorily insured and reason is very obvious so that in the case where the vehicle meets with the accident the claimants get the compensation from it. Contrary to what the object and purpose of providing the statutorily insurance of the vehicle to be taken compulsorily the Insurance Company is acting contrary to this object and purpose in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to show any ground much less a substantial ground which justifies the conduct and act of Insurance Company to challenge this award before this Court by filing this petition without first availing and exhausting alternate remedy of the appeal available to the petitioner. The Insurance Company, I am constrained to observe, has not acted fairly and reasonably in this matter. It has exhibited itself to be worst than the ordinary litigant in the Court. The Insurance Company, I am constrained to observe, has not acted fairly and reasonably in this matter. It has exhibited itself to be worst than the ordinary litigant in the Court. This is dishonest approach of the Insurance Company to file the petition directly in the matter where against the award statutory right of appeal is there. This appears to have been done deliberately and purposely so that the amount of compensation awarded to the claimant may be kept by Insurance Company for some time or for a longer time where the Court admits and grant the stay order in its favour. The appeal in the Court against such award is maintainable on deposit of 50% of the amount of compensation awarded. Insurance Company should not have this approach to save this money. It is insured vehicle and it should have come up with all the fairness to the claimants. It is a different matter if the Insurance Company considers that an award could if have been passed against it he may pray for the stay of the award in the appeal but it cannot be permitted to adopt this tactics to avoid the deposit of the 50% amount awarded bye-passing this remedy of the appeal. Whatever the legal points and grounds are available to the petitioner including that the award is against the provisions of law or the interpretation given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the provisions of Act concerned, these are the matters which can be taken care of by the appellate authority in the appeal and accordingly on success the relief can also be granted to the company. It is not gain say that in this matter appeal also would have lay to this Court. When the appeal lies to this Court still the petitioner preferred this writ petition it clearly goes to show and speaks of its (the Insurance Company) dishonest intention not to deposit the amount of the compensation. It is not the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner nor it could have been that the grounds raised in the writ petition could not have been available to the petitioner in the appeal. It is not the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner nor it could have been that the grounds raised in the writ petition could not have been available to the petitioner in the appeal. This Court is not sitting here to ignore this clear dishonest disorder and purpose of the Insurance Company and permit it to circumvent the remedy of the appeal which is entertainable by the court only on deposit of 50% amount of the award and entertain this petition and grant the relief. This conduct of the petitioner itself is sufficient for dismissal of this petition. 2. In the result, the petition fails and the same is dismissed. The petitioner is directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- as cost of this writ petition to the claimants. Before parting with this judgment I considered it to make it clear that the Insurance Company is an impersonal machinery and whatever is done by it is done by its officers. It is having law officers with it so that it is properly advised in the legal matter. Law officers are to act fairly and reasonably and to see that unnecessary money of the company is not wasted in an avoidable litigation. It is not gain say that if the company suffers monetary loss because of incorrect advice of its law officers or officer certainly it can take appropriate action against that officer and recover this amount from him. It is a case where this advice given of filing of this petition against the award against which appeal to this Court lies is clearly ill-advised. It is for the Regional Manager of the company to look into the matter and take appropriate action against the officer who has advised for filing of this petition in this matter in the Court.Petition Dismissed with costs of Rs. 2,000/-. *******