Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 4333 (MAD)

The Divisional Manager v. Kaliyan

2010-09-28

V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH

body2010
Judgment :- 1. The Revision in C.R.P.NPD No.3348 of 2010 has been filed against the order dated 11.03.2010 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [Principal District Judge], Puducherry in the unnumbered C.R.A.No. of 2009 in LAC No.1549 of 2009 in MACT O.P.No.250 of 2008 in refusing to review the Award dated 06.03.2009 passed before the Lok Adalat in LAC No.1549 of 2009 in MACT O.P.No.250 of 2008. 2. The Revisions in C.R.P.NPD Nos.1598 to 1560 of 2010 have been filed by the respective claimants in MACT O.P.No.250 of 2008 against the condition order dated 23.03.2010 imposed on them by the Tribunal directing each of them to furnish immovable security or bank security for a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- for the issuance of the cheques in their favour. 3. Mr.V.Balasubramanian, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner in C.R.P.[NPD] No.3348 of 2010 takes notice for the 2nd respondent in C.R.P. [NPD] Nos.1958 to 1960 of 2010 also. Mr.R.Thiagarajan, learned cousnel for petitioners in C.R.P. [NPD] Nos.1958 to 1960 of 2010 takes notice for the respondents 1 to 3 in C.R.P.[NPD] No.3348 of 2010. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner in C.R.P.No.3348 of 2010 would submit in his argument that the petitioner and respondents 1 to 3 had entered into a compromise and in pursuance of the same, an award in LAC No.1549 of 2009 in MACT O.P.No.250 of 2008 has been passed on 06.03.2009. At the time of entering into the said compromise, the insurance company was under the bonafide impression that the driver of the vehicle in question was having valid driving license and, therefore, compromise has been entered into between the parties and on the basis of the same, an award has also been passed by the Lok Adalat in favour of the claimants. But, subsequent to passing of the award, it was understood by the insurance company that the driver, who drove the vehicle at the time of accident was not having any valid driving license and under the conditions of insurance policy, the insurer should not have been made liable to pay the claim and the liability should be fastened with the owner of the vehicle . Therefore, a review application was taken out by the petitioner wherein the owner of the vehicle remained set ex parte and however, the tribunal had rejected the plea of the petitioner to review the order on the ground of maintainability of the review application. The learned counsel would further submit that there cannot be an appeal preferred against the award passed by the Lok Adalat and, therefore, the petitioner had no other go except to get it reviewed from the tribunal. The petitioner being the insurance company is entitled to recover the amount paid as compensation from the owner of the vehicle as per the dictum laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Zaharulnisha and others, 2008 ACJ 1928 . 6. Relying on the above said decision, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner in CRP NPD 3348 of 2010 would submit that the impugned order requires an interference at the hands of this Court and he would pray for passing suitable orders in the light of the judgement of the Honble Supreme Court cited supra and the right of the insurance company in recovering the amount deposited by it from the owner of the vehicle in question along with interest may be considered and ordered. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 in CRP NPD 3348 of 2010 would submit in his argument that no doubt, the matter was settled before the Lok Adalat and the respondents 1 to 3 as claimants were awarded compensation. Even according to the judgement of the Honble Supreme Court cited supra, the petitioner insurance company has to pay the amount to the claimants and thereafter to pursue against the owner of the vehicle and as such the compensation which was ordered to be paid to the claimants shall not be affected in any manner. He would further submit that the tribunal, however, while disposing of the payment out petitions, imposed certain conditions to furnish immovable security or bank security to the tune of Rs.1,25,000/- each by the claimants which is not sustainable in law in view of the judgement of the Honble Supreme Court cited supra. He would further submit that the tribunal, however, while disposing of the payment out petitions, imposed certain conditions to furnish immovable security or bank security to the tune of Rs.1,25,000/- each by the claimants which is not sustainable in law in view of the judgement of the Honble Supreme Court cited supra. Therefore, the learned counsel would pray that the orders impugned in CRP NPD 1958 to 1960 of 2010 may be set aside and the tribunal may suitably be directed to disburse the compensation to the respective claimants in accordance with law. 8. I have given anxious thoughts to the arguments advanced on either side. As regards the revision filed by the Insurance Company, indisputably, the petitioner in CRP NPD 3348 of 2010 and the respondents 1 to 3 / claimants had entered into a compromise and settled the matter before the Lok Adalat and in pursuance of the same, an Award was passed on 06.03.2009 in LAC No.1549 of 2009. No doubt, the said award has become final in between the parties. It is brought to the notice of this court that the driver who drove the vehicle at the time of accident was not having valid license and it was not noted at the time of entering into the compromise. Therefore, a review application was filed before the tribunal. Of course the award has been passed byt he Lok Adalat and if any review of the order is necessary, it ought to have been filed before the Lok Adalat for making a review of its order, but it was filed only before the tribunal. Once the case has been referred to the Lok Adalat by the tribunal, it goes out of its file. On a compromise arrived in between the parties, the Lok Adalat had passed the award. It is a settled law that any award passed by the Lok Adalat cannot be taken on appeal. However, it has been brought to the notice of this court that a mistake has been committed by the insurer, that it did not note the fact that the driver who drove the vehicle at the time of accident had no valid license. In Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Zaharulnisha and others, 2008 ACJ 1928 the Honble Supreme Court in para 18 and 19 has held as follows:- "18. In Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Zaharulnisha and others, 2008 ACJ 1928 the Honble Supreme Court in para 18 and 19 has held as follows:- "18. In the light of the above-settled proposition of law, the appellant insurance company cannot be held liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants for the cause of death of Shukurullah in road accident which had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of scooter by Ram Surat who admittedly had no valid and effective licence to drive the vehicle on the day of accident. The scooterist was possessing driving licence for driving HMV and he was driving totally different class of vehicle which act of his is in violation of Section 10(2) of the MV Act. 19. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the limited extent and it is directed that the appellant insurance company though not liable to pay the amount of compensation, but in the nature of this case it shall satisfy the award and shall have the right to recover the amount deposited by it along with interest from the owner of the vehicle, viz., respondent No.8, particularly in view of the fact that no appeal was preferred by him nor has he chosen to appear before this Court to contest this appeal. This direction is given in the light of the judgements of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur, 2004 ACJ 428 (SC) and Daddappa v. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Limited, 2008 ACJ 581 (SC)." 9. The said dictum is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. The petitioner in CRP [NPD] 3348 of 2010 has got a remedy of recovering the award amount deposited by it along with interest from the owner of the vehicle. 10. In the light of the above cited judgemnet of the Honble Supreme Court it has to be deemed that the award dated 06.03.2009 passed by the Lok Adalat in LAC 1549 of 2009 was subject to the right conferred upon the revision petitioner to pursue the claim against the owner of the vehicle. In view of the above, this court is of the view that the tribunal ought to have referred the application to the Lok Adalat for review and disposal, but the tribunal had gone into its maintainability and ultimately it had dismissed the same. In view of the above, this court is of the view that the tribunal ought to have referred the application to the Lok Adalat for review and disposal, but the tribunal had gone into its maintainability and ultimately it had dismissed the same. Therefore, the impugned order of the tribunal is liable to be interfered with by this Court and suitable directions are required to be given to the extent that the petitioner insurance company shall satisfy the award passed by the Lok Adalat and it shall have the right to recover the amount deposited by it along with interest from the owner of the vehicle. 11. As regards the revision petitions in CRP NPD Nos.1958 to 1960 of 2010 are concerned, no doubt, the Award in question was passed in favour of the petitioner in furtherance of compromise entered into between the claimants and the insurance company. In view of the said circumstance, the tribunal ought to have considered the entitlement of the revision petitioners / claimants and ordered for disbursement of compensation without furnishing any security. But, the tribunal only with an abundant caution had exceeded its limit and imposed a condition on the claimants to furnish immovable security for Rs.1,25,000/- each which is not sustainable in law. Therefore, it has become necessary for this Court to interfere with the orders passed by the tribunal in the payment out applications in I.A.Nos.2761 to 2763 of 2009 to the extent of furnishing security. 12. In the result, CRP [NPD] Nos.3348, 1958 to 1960 of 2010 are allowed; the impugned order in CRP [NPD] No.3348 of 2010 is set aside and the award dated 06.03.2009 passed by the Lok Adalat stand altered to the extent that the petitioner / insurance company shall satisfy the award and shall have the right to recover the award amount deposited by it along with interest from the owner of the vehicle i.e., 1st respondent in MACT O.P.No.250 of 2008 and in other respects the award passed by the Lok Adalat shall be maintained; the imgpugned orders in CRP [NPD] Nos.1958 to 1960 of 2010 to the extent directing the claimants in MACT O.P.no.250 of 2008 to furnish immovable property security for Rs.1,25,000/- or bank security are set aside; and the tribunal is hereby directed to disburse the compensation to the claimants provided the claimants satisfy the other legal and procedural requirements. No costs. No costs. Consequently, connected MPs are closed.