Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 430 (MP)

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ruchi Yadav

2022-03-14

NANDITA DUBEY

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. Heard on I.A. No. 2227/2022, which is an application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. On due consideration, this application is allowed. I.A. No. 2226/2022, an application for staying the execution proceedings is rejected. 2. Heard on the question of admission. Since the issue raised is already covered by several decisions of the Supreme Court, hence I do not find any reason to issue notice to the respondent No.1/claimant. Respondents No.2 and 3, respectively driver and owner of the vehicle were exparte before the Tribunal, hence, the matter is decided finally with the consent of learned counsel for the appellant. 3. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company against the award dtd. 27/9/2021, whereby an award of Rs.15,000.00 has been passed by the 5th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katni in MVC/1900193/2014. The brief facts of the case reveals that on 2/10/2014, the claimant alongwith others went for attending Dussehra Festival to Katni. While they were returning by Auto Rickshow No.MP/21/R/1523, it was hit by Truck No. MP/17/C/4563 come within the jurisdiction of P.S. NKJ Katni. As a result of which, auto turned turtle and non-fatal injuries were caused to all the occupants/claimants sitting in the auto rickshaw. An application under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was thereafter filed claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.9,50,000.00 alleging that the accident has taken place due to negligent and rash driving of the driver of Truck No.MP/17/C/4563. As a result of the accident, claimant/respondent has suffered permanent disability in her face and legs. 4. Despite service of notice, owner and driver of the truck remained absent from the proceedings, hence they were proceeded exparte. The appellant/non-applicant-Insurance Company has filed its reply, denying all the allegations. In its defence, it was stated that the auto rickshaw driver was not holding any valid and effective driving licence and was without any permit, carrying more passengers than its sitting capacity. The appellant/non-applicant-Insurance Company has filed its reply, denying all the allegations. In its defence, it was stated that the auto rickshaw driver was not holding any valid and effective driving licence and was without any permit, carrying more passengers than its sitting capacity. It was also alleged that the truck driver was also not holding any valid and effective driving licence, furthermore, and the truck carrying goods was required to possess valid permit as well as fitness certificate, however, these documents were not available in the truck, hence, in view of the breach of terms and conditions of the policy as well as the provisions of M.V. Act, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 5. The Claims Tribunal after recording the statement of claimant's witnesses and the statement of witnesses of the Insurance Company and the criminal case records, reach to a conclusion that the accident took place due to the negligent and rash driving of truck causing non-fatal injuries to the occupants of the auto rickshaw. It was also held that the truck was not holding any fitness certificate as required under Sec. 56 of the M.V. Act and accordingly, it was a breach of terms and conditions of the policy. However, on the principle of pay and recover, the appellant/Insurance Company was directed to pay the compensation amount of Rs.15,000.00 alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of institution of claim petition to the respondent/claimant. 6. The only contention of learned Senior Counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company is that it cannot be made liable for indemnifying the award of compensation in view of the finding regarding breach of policy conditions and prays to set aside the direction of the Claims Tribunal. 7. The issue whether the Insurance Company can be made liable to indemnify the award amount and recover it subsequently has already been considered in the case of (2004) ACT 2430 National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Challa Bhrathamma wherein it has been held :- " The residual question is what would be the appropriate direction. Considering the beneficial object of the Act, it would be proper for the insurer to satisfy the award, though in law it has no liability. In some cases the insurer has been given the option and liberty to recover the amount from the insured. Considering the beneficial object of the Act, it would be proper for the insurer to satisfy the award, though in law it has no liability. In some cases the insurer has been given the option and liberty to recover the amount from the insured. For the purpose of recovering the amount paid from the owner, the insurer shall not be required to file a suit. It may initiate a proceeding before the concerned Executing Court as if the dispute between the insurer and the owner was the subject matter of determination before the Tribunal and the issue is decided against the owner and in favour of the insurer. Before release of the amount to the claimants, owner of the offending vehicle shall furnish security for the entire amount which the insurer will pay to the claimants. The offending vehicle shall be attached, as a part of the security. If necessity arises the Executing Court shall take assistance of the concerned Regional Transport Authority. The Executing Court shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as to the manner in which the owner of the vehicle shall make payment to the insurer. In case there is any default it shall be open to the Executing Court to direct realization by disposal of the securities to be furnished or from any other property or properties of the owner of the vehicle i.e. the insured. In the instant case considering the quantum involved we leave it to the discretion of the insurer to decide whether it would take steps for recovery of the amount from the insured." In (2018) ACJ 2430 Rani and others Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and others, the Supreme Court has partly allowed the appeal filed by the claimants, keeping in mind the exposition in Singh Ram Vs. Nirmala and others (2018) 3 SCC 800 and Pappu and others Vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba and another (2018) 3 SCC 208 and directed the respondent No.1/Insurance Company to first pay the compensation amount to the irrespective claimants as determined by the High Court and the Tribunal as the case may, with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle/respondent No.2. In view of the aforesaid settled law, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and is accordingly dismissed. The Insurance Company is directed to comply with the order of the learned Claims Tribunal. In view of the aforesaid settled law, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and is accordingly dismissed. The Insurance Company is directed to comply with the order of the learned Claims Tribunal. Certified copy as per rules.