AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. Satish Chandra, J.—Present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company against the judgment and order dated 26th September, 2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pratapgarh in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 96 of 1996, whereby the compensation of Rs. 1,85,000/- was awarded alongwith interest @ 6% per annum. The brief facts of the case are that on 27th May, 1996, the deceased Mehendi Hasan was coming back to his village in a Tractor Trolley number U.G.T. 5207 alongwith other members of a band party. The accident occurred, when he was taking out his luggage from the Tractor Trolley. After examining the evidence, the Tribunal observed that the driver was not possessing a valid driving license and the Tractor Trolley was used for the purpose of marriage party, which was the violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. However, an award of Rs. 1,85,000/- was awarded in favour of the claimants-respondents and against the Insurance Company but right was given to the Insurance Company to recover this amount from the owner of the Tractor. Not being satisfied, the Insurance Company has filed the present appeal.
Sri U.P.S. Kushwaha learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that it was a clear cut violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The Trolley-Tractor was used for carrying the marriage party. So, the Insurance Company is not at all liable to pay any compensation. For this purpose, he relied on the ratio laid down in the following cases:
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Baljit Kaur and Others, .
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kaushalaya Devi and Others, .
United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Shimla v. Tilak Singh and others reported in 2006 AIR 1576 : 2006 (4) J.T. 280 : 2006 (2) T.A.C. 312 (S.C.).
On the other hand, Sri Niranjan Singh Counsel for the claimants-respondents supported the order of the Tribunal and submits that the right of recovery is already given to the appellant-Insurance Company.
We have heard both the parties at length and gone through the material available on record.
It is admitted that the factum of accident and compensation are not in dispute. The driver was not possessing a valid driving license at the time of accident is also undisputed fact.
From the record, it appears that the driver of the Tractor No. U.G.T. 5207 was driving the tractor negligently and FIR was also lodged against the driver under Sections 279/304-A IPC. As per the post-mortem report, the deceased died due to injuries. At the time of accident, the tractor was used for carrying marriage party and the driver was not possessing any license.
In these circumstances, we are of the view that the sole liability lies with the owner of the tractor but by keeping in mind the ratio laid down in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Baljit Kaur and others reported in 2004 S.C.C. (Cri.) 370 : 2004 (1) T.A.C. 366 (S.C.), we are of the view that the interest of justice will be sub-served if the appellant-Insurance Company herein is directed to satisfy the awarded amount in favour of the claimant if not already satisfied and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. For the purpose of such recovery, it would not be necessary for the insurer to file a separate suit but it may initiate a proceeding before the executing Court as if the dispute between the insurer and the owner was the subject matter of determination before the Tribunal and the issue is decided against the owner and in favour of the insurer. We have issued the aforementioned directions having regard to the scope and purport of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in terms whereof it is not only entitled to determine the amount of claim as put forth by the claimant for recovery thereof from the insurer, owner or driver of the vehicle jointly or severally but also the dispute between the insurer on the one hand and the owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident inasmuch as can be resolved by the Tribunal in such a proceeding.
In view of aforesaid discussion, we find nothing wrong in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal where the right of recovery was already given to the Insurance Company against the owner. Hence, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is hereby sustained alongwith the reasons mentioned therein. The amount, if any, deposited in this Court shall be remitted to the concerning Tribunal alongwith lower Court record within a period of four weeks. In the result, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed.