Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 931 (RAJ)

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Dhanna Ram

2009-04-01

PRAKASH TATIA

body2009
Hon'ble TATIA, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The only question involved in these appeals is that whether the Tribunal has committed error of law by directing the appellant insurance company to pay the awarded amount after holding that the appellant is not liable to pay the compensation. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants submitted that the entire awarded amount has been recovered in all these cases and now the appellant may recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle as per the decision of the Tribunal given in the impugned award dated 16.10.2008. It is also submitted that the appellants are having the full particulars of the owner of the vehicle and the respondents/claimants, some of whom are minors and some are majors, had no access to the owner of the vehicle before the Tribunal itself. Before the tribunal, the notice of the owner of the vehicle was served only by publication of notice in the newspaper. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere in the award passed by the Tribunal. It is also submitted that in several judgments, the Hon'ble Apex Court granted this relief to the claimants that they may be paid amount of the award by the insurance company with liberty to the insurance company to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle. It is also submitted that before the Tribunal, it was the case of the appellant that the ex-parte order has been passed against the owner, therefore, right to recover the amount from the owner may be given to the appellant company. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in subsequent decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that in case, when it is a claim of third party, then only in certain circumstances, the direction can be issued to the insurance company to pay the claim amount to the claimant and recover from the owner but it cannot be stressed to the person where the victim is not third party. It is also submitted that some of the amount has been paid in cash but the some has been paid in the form of fixed deposit, therefore, that amount may at least be returned to the appellant and may not be left to be recovered from the owner of the vehicle. 5. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the facts of the case. 5. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the facts of the case. 6. So far as the award is concerned, the Tribunal by following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein the view was taken that the insurance company may be directed to pay the awarded amount to the claimant with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle, then substantially, the Tribunal has not committed any error. Now the subsequent event which has occurred after the filing of these appeals, the entire amount has been recovered by the claimant and out of the recovered amount, some amount has been invested in F.D.R. Virtually that amounts to transfer of money in the hands of the claimant. Looking to the peculiar facts when the claimants are very small village people as well as some of them are minors, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned award while exercising appellate jurisdiction so as to recover the amount from the claimants when the appellant can recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle. 7. In view of the above reasons, all these appeals, having no force, are hereby dismissed.