Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1892 (RAJ)

Om Prakash Jain v. Sita

2022-06-29

ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. Since the controversy involved in both the misc. appeals arise out of a common judgment and award, hence same are being decided together. 2. Both the appeals have been filed against the judgment and award dated 11.11.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Judge), Jaipur in MAC case No.181/2011 by which the claim petition filed by the claimants was allowed, but the Insurance Company has been exonerated from its liability to make the payment of compensation and the driver and owner of the vehicle have been directed to pay the amount of compensation as determined by the Tribunal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant-owner of the vehicle as well as counsel for the claimants-appellants submit that while deciding the issue No.3, the Tribunal has held that there was no permit of the vehicle and only on this ground the Insurance Company has been exonerated from its liability. They further submit that the issued involved in these appeals have already been decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Amrit Paul Singh and anr. v. TATA AIG General Insurance Company ltd. & Ors. Reported in AIR 2018 SC 2662 . Learned counsel further submit that following the aforesaid judgment, the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court has also decided the issue in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Sonia & Ors. In SB Civil Misc. Appeal No.1679/2019, whereby the Coordinate Bench of this Court directed the Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants and also directed to recover the amount from the driver/owner of the vehicle. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has not committed any illegality while passing the impugned judgment and the Insurance Company is not liable to make any sort of compensation to the claimants-respondents as there was breach of policy and the owner of the vehicle was not having the permit to ply the vehicle. 5. Heard counsel appearing for the parties and gone through the material available on record. 6. This fact is not in dispute that the controversy involved in these appeals has already been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Amrit Paul (supra) and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Challa Bharthamma & Ors. 5. Heard counsel appearing for the parties and gone through the material available on record. 6. This fact is not in dispute that the controversy involved in these appeals has already been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Amrit Paul (supra) and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Challa Bharthamma & Ors. Reported in (2004) 8 SCC 517 wherein directions have been issued to the Insurance Company to first make the payment of compensation to the claimants and then recover the same from the driver/owner of the vehicle. 7. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case and applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments, the findings recorded by the Tribunal on issue No.3 with regard to exonerating the Insurance Company from its liability is modified and the respondent-Insurance Company is directed to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants-respondents and then recover the same from the driver and owner of the vehicle. 8. With these observations, both these appeals stand disposed of with the direction to the respondent-Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. 9. Liberty to recover the amount of compensation is given to the Insurance Company from Driver/owner of the vehicle. 10. Both the appeals stand disposed of. 11. Stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 12. The office is directed to return the record of the Tribunal forthwith. 13. A copy of this judgment be placed in the connected case file.