Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1344 (RAJ)

Rati Ram v. New India Assurance Co.

2000-11-09

GYAN SUDHA MISRA

body2000
Honble MISRA, J.–An amount of Rs. 72,500/- was awarded to the petitioner by way of compensation on account of accidental death met by the mother of the petitioner-Smt. Anandi Devi. While the matter was pending before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dholpur, Lok-Adalat was held wherein a compromise was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent No.1- The New India Insurance Company and also against another Insurance Company United India Insurance Company, (who is not the party herein as it has already paid the amount to the petitioner in execution of the compromise recorded in the Lok-Adalat). The respondent No.1 the New India Insurance Company however refused to honour the compromise recorded at the Lok Adalat on the ground that the said compromise was conditional as it was subject to verification of the documents. Challenging the compromise, it was further contended that the driving licence of the driver of the vehicle which caused accident was not valid and hence the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the amount to the claimant as the driver of the vehicle was not holding a valid licence. This plea of the Insurance Company was entertained by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal driver and hence the compromise was set aside by the Tribunal. The claimant-petitioner feeling aggrieved with the same, has filed this writ petition. (2). The counsel for the parties have been heard in the matter from where and it is clearly gathered that although the compromise before the Lok-Adalat was based on the condition that the amount would be paid by the Insurance Company after verification of the documents, the said condition obviously was not applicable to the claimant as this objection by the respondent-Insurance Company could be raised against the owner of vehicle who had insured his vehicle with the Insurance Company. The dispute therefore, regarding the validity of the driving licence is between the owner of the vehicle and the respondent- Insurance Company. The dispute therefore, regarding the validity of the driving licence is between the owner of the vehicle and the respondent- Insurance Company. In so far as the claimant petitioner is concerned, there is no dispute that he is the claimant or that he is not liable to receive the amount and hence in so far as his part is concerned, there is not infirmity in the document produced by the petitioner in regard to his eligibility to receive the amount so as to give rise to a plank for the respondent-Insurance Company not to honour the compromise against the claimant-petitioner. The dispute regarding validity of the licence is an inter-se dispute between the owner of the vehicle and the respondent-Insurance Company which the Insurance Company is entitled to contest before the appropriate forum, but on this account the Insurance Company cannot be absolved of the liability to execute and honour the compromise which it had entered with the petitioner. The claimant petitioner could not have been expected to prove the validity of the licence of the driver as it is for the owner to prove or disprove it. (3). Under the circumstances the resistance of the respondents- Insurance Company in refusing to honour the compromise entered before the Lok-Adalat is clearly unsustainable and without merit. Accordingly, the writ petition is fit to be allowed. The order of the Motor Accident, Claims Tribunal, Dholpur setting aside the compromise recorded before the Lok-Adalat accordingly stands set aside and the Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of Rs. 72,500/- alongwith interest as incorporated in the order of the compromise within a period of two months before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dholpur. It is however left open for the respondent-Insurance Company to proceed against the owner of the vehicle and realise the amount if the Insurance Policy for the vehicle in question was not duly honoured by the owner of the vehicle so as to saddle the liability of the amount of compensation on the owner. (4). The writ petition stands accordingly allowed, but in the circumstances without costs.