Nov - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Nov - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Nov - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
3 All] New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V. Mohd. Yameen and others 1027<br />
insurance Company to pay the entire<br />
amount <strong>of</strong> award-recover the same from<br />
vehicle owner-held perfectly justifiedappeal<br />
by insurance company dismissed.<br />
Held: Para 19<br />
In view <strong>of</strong> the above, it is evident th<strong>at</strong><br />
the Tribunal did not commit any illegality<br />
in directing the Insurance Company/<br />
Appellant to make deposit <strong>of</strong> the amount<br />
<strong>of</strong> compens<strong>at</strong>ion and recover the same<br />
from the insured person i.e. the owner <strong>of</strong><br />
the vehicle in question - respondent no.3<br />
herein.<br />
Case law discussed:<br />
AIR 1998 SC 588, 2004(3) SCC 297 : 2004 (1)<br />
T.A.C. 321 : AIR 2004 SC 1531, 2008(1) T.A.C.<br />
803 (S.C.), (2007) 3 S.C.C. 700 : 2007 (2)<br />
T.A.C. 398, (2007) 5 S.C.C. 428: 2007 (2)<br />
T.A.C. 417.<br />
(Delivered by Hon'ble S<strong>at</strong>ya Poot Mehrotra, J.)<br />
1. The present Appeal has been filed<br />
by the Insurance Company under Section<br />
173 <strong>of</strong> the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988<br />
against the award d<strong>at</strong>ed 22.5.2009<br />
whereby Rs. 1,69,940/- with interest @<br />
6% per annum has been awarded as<br />
compens<strong>at</strong>ion to the claimantsrespondents<br />
on account <strong>of</strong> the de<strong>at</strong>h <strong>of</strong><br />
Wasim in an accident which took place on<br />
23.4.2005 <strong>at</strong> around 4.00 a.m. in the<br />
morning wherein Canter No. UP23B-<br />
2043 collided with a Truck.<br />
2. The Motor Vehicles Accident<br />
Claims Tribunal framed five issues.<br />
3. Issue No.1 was in regard to the<br />
factum <strong>of</strong> accident having taken place on<br />
account <strong>of</strong> rash and negligent driving by<br />
the driver <strong>of</strong> the aforesaid vehicle,<br />
namely, Canter No. UP23B-2043. The<br />
Tribunal decided the said Issue in the<br />
affirm<strong>at</strong>ive.<br />
4. Issue No.2 was as to whether the<br />
vehicle in question was insured with the<br />
Insurance Company/ Appellant and as to<br />
whether the driver <strong>of</strong> the vehicle was<br />
having a valid and effective Driving<br />
License on the d<strong>at</strong>e <strong>of</strong> accident. The<br />
Tribunal held th<strong>at</strong> the vehicle in question<br />
was insured with the Insurance Company/<br />
Appellant on the d<strong>at</strong>e <strong>of</strong> the accident.<br />
However, it was held th<strong>at</strong> the driver <strong>of</strong> the<br />
vehicle in question was not having valid<br />
and effective Driving License on the d<strong>at</strong>e<br />
<strong>of</strong> accident.<br />
5. Issue No. 3 was as to whether the<br />
Claim Petition was bad for non-joinder <strong>of</strong><br />
necessary parties. The said Issue was<br />
decided against the opposite parties in the<br />
Claim Petition.<br />
6. Issue No.4 was as to whether the<br />
deceased was travelling in the vehicle in<br />
question as gr<strong>at</strong>ituous passenger in an<br />
unauthorized manner which was viol<strong>at</strong>ive<br />
<strong>of</strong> the terms and conditions <strong>of</strong> the<br />
insurance policy. The Tribunal decided<br />
the said Issue in the affirm<strong>at</strong>ive in favour<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Insurance Company/ Appellant. It<br />
was held th<strong>at</strong> the vehicle in question was<br />
being used for commercial purposes, and<br />
the same was against the terms and<br />
conditions <strong>of</strong> the insurance policy.<br />
7. Issue No.5 was as to whether the<br />
claimants-respondents were entitled to get<br />
compens<strong>at</strong>ion as against the opposite<br />
parties in the Claim Petition jointly or<br />
separ<strong>at</strong>ely. It was held by the Tribunal<br />
th<strong>at</strong> the claimants/ respondents were<br />
entitled for compens<strong>at</strong>ion amounting to<br />
Rs.1,69,940/- with interest @ 6%.<br />
However, the compens<strong>at</strong>ion was not<br />
payable by the Insurance Company/<br />
Appellant but was payable by Mahmood<br />
Hasan, owner <strong>of</strong> the vehicle in questionrespondent<br />
no.3 herein.