Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1345 (RAJ)

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Betul Begum

2012-05-22

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. In this appeal filed under Section 173, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the appellant insurance company is challenging the validity of the award dated 9.1.2012 passed in Claim Case No. 336/2011, by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Udaipur, by which, compensation of Rs. 65,000/- has been awarded in favour of the injured respondent-claimant and appellant insurance company has been directed to pay the amount of compensation and, thereafter, recover the same from the owner and driver of the insured offending vehicle. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant invited my attention towards judgment of this Court reported in 2005 A.C.J. 1653, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Madho Singh & Ors. and submits that the liability of the insurance company is within the limits of the statute and not beyond the scope of the insurance policy in view of Section 149(7) of the Act of 1988 and, in this case, an order has been passed by the Tribunal to pay the amount of compensation and thereafter recover the same from the owner and driver of the insured vehicle. The order passed by the Tribunal is in contravention of the settled law because on the one hand the Tribunal has given the finding that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation; but, at the same time, order has been passed to first pay the amount of compensation and, then, recover the same form the owner and driver. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, it is admitted fact that the vehicle in question is insured with the appellant insurance company and they are taking premium from the owner of the vehicle. It is also not in dispute that the driver was possessing licence for driving LMV and transport vehicle both but the day oil which the occurrence took place, i.e., 29.9.2003, the driver was holding licence for driving LMV. 5. In this regard, I have perused the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of National Insurance Company v. Srawan Singh & Ors. reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297 . In the said judgment three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court made the following adjudication with regard to liability of the insurer in terms of Sections 149(1) of the Act: "104. reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297 . In the said judgment three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court made the following adjudication with regard to liability of the insurer in terms of Sections 149(1) of the Act: "104. It is, therefore, evident from the discussions made hereinbefore that the liability of the insurance company to satisfy the decree at the first instance and to recover the awarded amount from the owner or driver thereof has been holding the field for a long time. 105. Apart from the reasons stated hereinbefore, the doctrine of stare decision persuades us not to deviate from the said principle. 106. It is a well-settled rule of law and should not ordinarily be deviated from. (See Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar, SCR at pp. 630-32 ; Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT, SCR at pp. 921-22 ; Union of India v. Raghubir Singh, SCR at pp. 323, 327, 334 ; Gannon Dunkerley & Co. v. State of Rajasthan , Belgaum Gardeners Co-op. Production Supply and Sale Society Ltd. v. State of Karnataka and Hanumantappa Krishnappa Mantur v. State of Karnataka )." 6. Upon perusal of the entire judgment/award under challenge, it is revealed that although it is a case of violation of the terms and conditions of the policy by I the owner; but, the fact remains that vehicle in question was insured with the appellant insurance company. Therefore, certainly as per judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Srawan Singh's case, the appellant insurance company has lightly been held responsible to first indemnify the award and thereafter recover the amount of compensation from the owner. If the vehicle which is insured is driven by the owner in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, then, obviously the insurance company cannot be held responsible for the liability of compensation; but, for the act of the owner for contravening the terms and conditions of the policy certainly the insurance company is liable to first indemnify the award and, then, to recover the amount of compensation from the owner in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Srawan Singh's case (supra) rendered by the three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court.In this view of the matter, 1 see no reasons to interfere in the award impugned ire this appeal.Hence this miscellaneous appeal is dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******