Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 807 (JHR)

Gyan Chand Agarwal v. Ropa Oraon

2009-05-20

JAYA ROY, M.Y.EQBAL

body2009
JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal by owner of the vehicle is against that part of the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Lohardaga, in Compensation Case No. 49 of 1995 whereby Claims Tribunal directed the insurance company to pay the compensation amount and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle on the alleged ground of violation of Rule 62(1) of the Motor Vehicles Rules. 2. For better appreciation finding of the Tribunal which is recorded at para 29 of the impugned judgment is reproduced herein-below: On perusal of the case record, owner of the vehicle has filed the tax token, permit, photostat of driving licence of the driver, Sheetahal Singh renewed up to date D.T.O. Lohardaga, photocopy of certificate of registration of the vehicle No. BR-14A-5884 and photocopy of accident report dated 1.10.1994 of the Motor Vehicles Inspector, fitness certificate, Form No. 38, is not submitted by the owner of the vehicle. A petition was filed on 3.9.2003 by the OP. No. 2 requesting to direct the O.P. No. 1 to file the documents particularly fitness report and accordingly owner of the vehicle, O.P. No. 1 was directed to file fitness report, but owner of the vehicle O.P. No. 1 has never filed the fitness certificate. The vehicle in question had also met with an accident on 29.9.1994 and case was registered under Sections 279/337, Indian Penal Code and M.V.I. inspected and reported vide dated 1.10.1994 regarding accident. Therefore, there is no fitness certificate filed on behalf of the vehicle owner and it violated the Rule 62 (1) of Motor Vehicles Rules and as such insurance company is not responsible to make payment of the compensation amount. However, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Lohardaga Branch is bound to pay the compensation amount to the third party and as such Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. is directed to make payment of the compensation amount to the claimants within 60 days of this order and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. O.P. No. 2, is further entitled to recover the compensation amount already paid to the claimants from the owner of vehicle, Gyan Chand Agarwal of truck No. BR-14A-5884. 3. In our view, even assuming that there is some violation, particularly Rule 62 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Rules, that will not exonerate the insurance company from its liability for payment of compensation. 3. In our view, even assuming that there is some violation, particularly Rule 62 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Rules, that will not exonerate the insurance company from its liability for payment of compensation. In that view of the matter when the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation amount, it has no right to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. 4. For the reasons aforesaid, this appeal is allowed in part and that part of the award whereby direction was issued for recovery of the amount is set aside. 5. The statutory amount deposited by the appellant for the maintainability of the appeal is permitted to be withdrawn.