Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2336 (RAJ)

United India Insurance Co. v. Urmila Devi

2011-11-03

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2011
Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—This appeal has been filed by the appellant on the ground that driver did not have any valid license at the time of accident to drive the tractor. Accident took place on 26.4.1996 leading to death of Ramesh Chand whereas, the driving licence that was produced was valid for the period from 8.6.1996 to 15.1.2001. It was even the learning licence and was issued in the name of the driver after the incident. Learned counsel for the appellant has cited the judgments of Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co.Ltd. vs. Prabhu Lal : MACD 2008 (SC) 21, Ram Babu Tiwari vs. United India Insurance Co.Ltd. & Ors. : MACD 208 (SC) 351 = 2009(1) CCR 63 (SC), Iswar Chandra & Ors. vs. Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. & Ors. : 2007(2) TAC 393 (SC) and National Insurance co.Ltd. vs. Vidhyadhar Mahariwala & Ors. : MACD 2008 (SC) 382 and argued that appellant insurance company cannot be saddled with liability to make compensation and to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the appeal and submitted that this Court vide order dated 30.5.2003 has modified the interim order originally passed on 8.7.2002 directing that even 50% was not paid to the claimant therefore it was directed that 50% of the deposited amount shall be disbursed to the claimant as per the award keeping in view the terms given therein with regard to the investment etc. 3. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned award, I find that in view of the judgments of Supreme Court aforecited, the insurance company cannot be saddled with the liability to make payment to the claimant and then recover from the owner because driver in this case admittedly did not have any license whatsoever. Even from the modified interim order, it does not appear whatever the amount invested in the nationalized bank under the FDR has been paid to the claimant. 4. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The appellant insurance company is held entitled to recover the 50% amount from the national-ized bank wherever the said amount has been deposited and if the same has not been disbursed to the claimant, it may be returned to the insurance company and in case it has been disbursed to the claimant, insurance company is entitled to recover the same from the owner.