AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
10 paragraphs · 413 wordsGautam Kumar Choudhary, J
Insurance Company is in appeal against the judgment of award under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 in Title (Motor Vehicle) Suit No.249 of 2011 by which liability has been fixed on the Insurance Company to pay compensation amount.
The facts are not in dispute that Satyanarayan Singh died in a motor vehicle accident involving a truck bearing registration no.WB 41 8056, when the deceased was travelling on his Santro car bearing registration no.JH 10 0652. The learned Tribunal recorded a finding that accident was due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the truck, and awarded compensation to the claimants.
The short questions that have been raised on behalf of the Insurance Company is that, specific finding has been recorded on issue no.vi that permit of the offending vehicle was not brought on record by the owner of the vehicle, who was impleaded in the claim case as opposite party no.1/respondent no.4. Despite drawing an adverse inference for not producing permit by the owner of the vehicle, right of recovery has not been given to the appellant. Reliance is placed on Amrit Paul Singh Vs. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd., (2018) 7 SCC 558, wherein it has been held that primary liability to produce the permit was on the owner of the vehicle and having failed to do so, the Insurance Company was entitled to right of recovery.
Learned counsel on behalf of claimants submits that respondent no.1 has died during the pendency of the appeal and the other legal heirs and dependents of Satyanarayan Singh are already on record.
Although notice was validly served on the owner of vehicle, but none have appeared on his behalf.
Considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amrit Paul Singh (supra) and finding recorded by the learned Tribunal regarding non-production of permit by the owner of the vehicle, this Court is of the view that appellant-Insurance Company is entitled to right to recovery against owner.
Insurance Company is directed to make full payment of the compensation amount to the claimants within a month of the order which will be disbursed to the claimants as per the terms fixed by it. Insurance Company will have right to recover the compensation amount from the owner.
Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly, allowed.
Statutory amount be remitted to the Tribunal for disbursement to the claimants. Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of.
