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
19 paragraphs · 383 wordsP. Sam Koshy, J
Present is an appeal by the Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act assailing the award dated 08/10/2010 passed by the
learned 9th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Bilaspur in Motor Accident Claim Case No.106/2010.
Vide the said impugned award, the Tribunal in an injury case has awarded a compensation of Rs.63,498/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the
date of application.
The counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that, it is a case where the policy which was issued in favour of the injured stood
cancelled as the cheque which was issued for the issuance of policy got dishonored on account of insufficient fund. This aspect has not been properly
appreciated by the Tribunal. He further submits that, the Insurance Company in the instant case has led sufficient evidence to establish this fact that
the policy stood cancelled well in advance in as much as the policy stood cancelled on 05/09/2007 and the accident took place on 21/01/2008 and that
the cancellation part was also duly intimated to the injured and therefore the Insurance Company could not have been saddled with the liability of
payment of compensation.
The counsel for the respondent submits that, it is a case where the Insurance Company has already deposited the entire amount and as such has
satisfied the award that has been passed and nothing further remains to be adjudicated upon in the instant case. He further submits that, the owner as
such has not been able to file his WS before the Tribunal with which he could have taken a specific stand.
Given the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and taking note of the fact that, the entire amount awarded by the Tribunal has been
deposited by the Insurance Company as has been directed by this Court vide its order dated 08/08/2011 this Court is of the opinion that, ends of justice
would meet if the appeal is allowed in part to the extent that, the Insurance Company shall have the liberty to recover the same from the owner i.e.
respondent No.2 who was the owner of the vehicle at the time of the accident.
With the aforesaid observation, the appeal stands allowed in part and disposed off.