AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Sri B.C. Pandey learned Counsel for the appellant.
Both the appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, in short ''Act'' have been preferred against the impugned award dated 6th August, 2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Lucknow in case Nos. 84 of 2002 and 80 of 2002.
According to the learned Counsel for the appellants, the deceased Praveen Kumar Awasthi was a student of Class XII. On 10th May, 2002 at about 10 a.m. in the morning, the deceased was going to Gola Gokarnath on a Jeep No. U.P. 30 A4834. Near the Sugarcane center, the driver of truck bearing No. DL 1 G18778, which was adjacent to the jeep, used brake and after seeing stopping of the truck, the driver of the jeep too applied his brake and stopped his Jeep. In consequence thereof, another Truck No. HR 26 A8630 which was coming behind the jeep dashed with the Jeep, on which the deceased Praveen Kumar Awasthi was sitting. On account of the said accident, Praveen Kumar Awasthi succumbed to his injuries on the spot and Neelam Awasthi was seriously injured. An FIR was also lodged. In consequences thereof, the dependent of the deceased and the injured herself, filed the claim petitions.
Learned Tribunal after recording the evidence has awarded compensation to the dependent of the deceased and the injured to the tune of Rs. 1,80,000 and Rs. 3,26,000.;
While assailing the impugned award, it hasbeen submitted by Sri B.C. Pandey, learned Counsel for the appellants that the Truck No. HR 26 A8630 was not insured to the appellants company and in spite of the fact that it was not insured, learned Tribunal has directed to pay compensation under the impugned award. The submission is that since the Tribunal has recorded a finding with regard to contributory negligence while apportioning the compensation, the amount is payable by truck owner and not by the appellant insurance company to whom the truck was not insured.
We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellants at length and gone through the material available on record.
Of course, a finding of fact has been recorded with regard to contributory negligence and apportionment of compensation in the ratio of 50% but while rendering the impugned award, it has been provided that the appellant shall be entitled to recover the same from respondent No. 4. Though, the compensation under the impugned award is liable to be paid by the appellant but shall be recoverable. It is settled proposition of law that in case a compensation is directed to be paid by the insurance company although the same is actually not payable under the facts and circumstances of a particular case, the same may be recovered by the insurance company from the person or the authority concerned.
In the present case, the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant does not seem to be sustainable as liberty has been given by the Tribunal to recover the amount paid by the appellant from the respondent No. 4.
Apart from above, while assailing the award, the appellants Counsel could not point out any illegality or perversity in the impugned award.
Both the appeals are devoid of merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed with liberty to the appellant to recover half of the amount from the respondent No. 4 (respondent No. 2 in the claim petition) in terms of the impugned award dated 6th August, 2007. Appeals dismissed.