Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 15 (GAU)

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Amiya Borbora

2003-01-08

I.A.ANSARI

body2003
ORDER I.A. Ansari, J. 1. By making this application under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, namely, M/s. National Insurance Company Ltd. Tezpur, (Assam) has approached this Court seeking issuance of writ/writs setting aside and quashing the impugned order, dated 24-4-2000, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bomdilla, in MAC No. 1/98, whereby the learned Tribunal has directed the petitioner to pay No Fault liability amount of Rs. 50,000/- within 14 days, and seeking further directions to the respondent No. 3, owner of the vehicle No. AR-03-0162 involved in the accident, to make payment of the said No Fault liability amount. 2. The material facts leading to this writ petition may, in brief, be stated as follows : The respondent No. 2 instituted a suit, as claimant, MAC No. 01/98 aforementioned claiming compensation on account of the death of her husband, late Arun Borbora, which was caused in an accident involving the vehicle No. AR-03-0162. The petitioner was impleaded as one of the defendants. The petitioners filed their written statement alleging to the effect that the insurance policy produced by the owner of the vehicle was a forged one inasmuch as their agent had affixed a forged seal on the insurance policy, Learned Tribunal, upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, passed the impugned order, dated 24-4-2000, aforementioned directing the writ petitioner to pay the No Fault liability amount of Rs. 50,000/- in terms of Section 140(2) of the M.V. Act within a period of 14 days. 3. I have carefully perused the materials on record including the impugned order. I have heard Mr. T. Son, learned counsel for the petitioner. None has appeared on behalf of the respondents. 4. The Motor Vehicle Act (hereinafter referred to as "MV Act") is a social legislation and No Fault liability amount is paid to the legal representatives of the person, who dies in motor vehicular accident, with the object of saving such legal representatives from financial hardship and destitution by making promptly available to them the benefit of benevolent scheme of No Fault liability amount. The question as to whether the insurance policy, in question, was a valid one or not is really a plea raised by the petitioner and such a plea can be decided only in a regular proceeding and not at the interim stage, when the Tribunal is considering the question of No Fault liability in terms of Section140(2) of the MV Act. Until proved to be forged, the insurance policy, in question, shall have to be treated as valid, this apart, the amount of No Fault liability, which the writ petitioner in the present case has been directed to pay, can be recovered by the writ petitioner from their agent concerned or from the insured, as the case may be. 5. In support of his submission, Mr. T. Son has referred to. This case does not relate to payment of interim compensation arising out of motor vehicular accidents. This is a case of realization of insured amount only. Hence, the law laid down in the case, so referred to by Mr. T. Son, is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 6. In the result and for the reasons discussed above, this writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. The order, dated 24-5-2000, passed in this case, whereby the operation of the impugned order, dated 24-4-2000, aforementioned stood stayed, shall accordingly stand vacated. 7. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition shall stand disposed of. 8. However, I do not impose any cost on the petitioner.