Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Habibullah Dar And Others

Impugned in this Appeal is Award dated 21.01.2013, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Anantang (for short “Tribunalâ€) on a Claim

petition bearing File no. 84/Claim Petition titled Habibullah Dar and others v. Zahoor Ahmad Wagay and others, directing appellant Insurance

Company to pay compensation in the amount of Rs.6,42,000/- along with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of institution of claim till realization,

on the grounds made mention of therein.

A claim petition, as is discernible from perusal of the file, was filed by respondents 1 to 5 before the Tribunal on 23.10.2009, averring therein that

one Nazir Ahmad Dar, aged 25 years, died in an accident, which took place on 20.06.2006 near Akingam due to rash and negligent driving of driver of

offending vehicle (Bus), bearing Registration no.JKE/3043, which was insured with appellant Insurance Company, Claimants/Respondent no. 3 sought

compensation to the tune of Rs.43,50,000/-.

Appellant Insurance Company resisted the claim before the Tribunal on the ground that driver of offending vehicle had no valid licence at the time

of accident.

The Tribunal, in view of pleadings of parties, framed Issues for determination, which are:

1) Whether on 20.06.2006 the respondent no.1 was driving vehicle bearing Registration No. JKE-3043 rashly and negligently and because of such

rash and negligent driving, death of Nazir Ahmad Dar S/o Habibullah took place? ...OPP

2) Whether the respondent no.1 was driving the said vehicle in violation of the terms and conditions of insurance policy and was driving the same

without valid driving license? ...OPR3

3) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation on account of death of deceased Nazir Ahmad Dar, if so to what extent and from whom?

OPP

4) Relief.

Claimants produced and examined six witnesses before the Tribunal; besides claimants/respondent no.3. Appellant Insurance Company did not

produce any witness in opposition to the claim petition.

By impugned Award, the Tribunal found claimants/respondents entitled to receive compensation of Rs.6,42,000/- along with 7.5% interest per

annum.

Heard and considered.

Learned counsel for appellant Insurance Company has stated that the Tribunal has erred not only in facts but also in law in directing the company

under the impugned award to pay awarded amount to claimants/respondents 1 to 5 and thereafter seek recovery of paid amount from respondent no.7,

owner of the offending vehicle, as it has been established by sufficient evidence that driver, respondent no.6, was not holding a driving licence at the

time of accident. As regards above submissions, Issue no.2 has been framed, discussed and decided by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has in clear cut

terms observed that Insurance Company has proved through documentary evidence that driver of offending vehicle was not in possession of valid and

effective driving licence at the time of accident and accordingly right of recovery of awarded amount has been reserved in favour of Insurance

Company in appropriate proceedings.

The question, whether Insurance Company can be and ought to be directed to pay claim amount, with liberty to recover the same from the

owner/driver of the vehicle, has been answered by the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd v. Swaran Singh and others (2004) 3 SCC

297, and recapitulated in Pappu and others v. Vinod Kumar Lamba and others, (2018) 3 SCC 208. On the contention of Insurance Company that once

the defence taken by insurer is accepted by Tribunal, it is bound to discharge insurer and fix liability only on owner and/or driver of vehicle, the

Supreme Court held that even if insurer succeeded in establishing its defence, the Tribunal or the Court could direct insurance Company to pay the

award amount to claimant(s) and, in turn, recover the same from owner of vehicle. The three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Swaran Singh

(supra), after analysing earlier decisions on the point, held that there was no reason to deviate from the said well-settled principle. Having said that,

impugned Award does not warrant any interference and as a corollary thereof, Appeal on hand is liable to be dismissed.

Next assertions of learned counsel for appellant Insurance Company is that the tribunal has erred in facts as well as in law in awarding a

compensation of Rs.6,42,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% in favour of respondents 1 to 5 as the same is excessive keeping in view the status of

the deceased and those of claimants in the claim petition.

Above submission of learned counsel for appellant Insurance Company has no force. The reason being that the Tribunal, while deciding Issue no.3

qua computation of compensation, has comprehensively discussed all facets of the matter. The Tribunal, while computing compensation, relied upon

the judgments passed in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, AIR 2009 SC 3104, and only thereafter granted compensation in the amount of

Rs.6,42,000/-. In that view of matter, impugned Award to the extent of compensation also does not warrant any interference.

For the reasons discussed above, the Appeal on hand is dismissed with connected CM(s). Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated.

Record of the Tribunal, if summoned/received, be sent down along with copy of this judgement.