JUDGMENT [ENTITY], J.
1. Heard the Counsel for the appellants.
2. Since the issue involved in all these appeals is common, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.
3. All these appeals are filed challenging the awards passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarding different amounts to the claimants injured ranging from Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- in the same accident.
4. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that as per the policy the vehicle is permitted to ply only upto 7 k.ms. within a prescribed route, but the owner of the vehicle got it plied beyond the said limit and also in deviation to the prescribed route. Therefore, she vehemently contended that as the vehicle, which was involved in the accident, plied contrary to the prescribed limitations, it amounts to violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and hence the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation to the injured.
5. At the outset I am of the considered view that impugned awards do not warrant any interference, since the amounts awarded to the claimants who are admittedly injured in the accident, are very meager, ranging from Rs. 15,000/-to the Rs. 20,000/- and on that score i.e., on the ground of triviality, this Court is inclined to dismiss the appeals without expressing any opinion on merits and also without making the decision as a binding precedent. But the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants strenuously contended that in all these appeals principle of law is involved rather than quantum of compensation awarded and, therefore urged this Court to dispose of the appeals by giving findings on merits.
6. In fact, the issue in the present appeals is covered by a series of judgments of the Apex Court. However, in the light of law laid down by Apex Court, I would like to consider the contention raised by the Counsel for the appellant.
7. The brief facts of the cases are that the on 20.11.1999 at about 12.30 p.m. the bus bearing No. AP 03-U-0849 in which the claimants were travelling met with the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by the driver and as a result all the claimants sustained injuries. As submitted by the Counsel for the appellants, it appears that the vehicle was driven beyond the prescribed limits and also in contravention of the route prescribed in the policy. Therefore, as per the contention of the Counsel for the appellants it amounts to violation of the terms and conditions of the policy.
8. Admittedly all the claimants who were travelling in the vehicle were injured because of the accident and only trump card for the Insurance Company in order to get absolved from the liability is violation of the terms and conditions of the policy'. This ground in fact is not available for the Insurance Company to deny the compensation to the injured who are third parties, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the decisions reported in [PRECEDENT], , [PRECEDENT], and [PRECEDENT].
9. In [PRECEDENT]'s case (supra), the Apex Court held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay to the third parties irrespective of the fact that there is any breach or violation of the policy conditions. It was further held that the insurance company could recover from the insured the amount so paid to the third parties, even if as per the policy conditions the insurer had no liability to pay such sum. The relevant portion at paragraph No. 22 of the judgment is extracted as under for ready reference:
"To repeat, the effect of the above provisions is this: When a valid insurance policy has been issued in respect of a vehicle as evidenced by a certificate of insurance the burden is on the insurer to pay to third parties, whether or not there has been any breach or violation of the policy conditions. But the amount so paid by the insurer to the third parties can be allowed to be recovered from the insured if as per the policy conditions the insurer had no liability to pay such sum to the insured."
10. In a subsequent judgment in [PRECEDENT]'s case (supra), the Apex Court had to deal with a situation where the owner of the vehicle having satisfied with the driving licence of the driver, entrusted the vehicle to him and due to his rash and negligent driving, the motor vehicle met with an accident. It was alleged that the driver of the vehicle was having a fake licence. In the said case, the contention of the Insurance Company was that since the driving licence of the driver of motor vehicle involved in accident was fake, it amounts to violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and hence it is not liable to pay any compensation to third parties who received injuries. In the said judgment, the Insurance Company sought the Apex Court to reconsider the correctness of the decision laid down in [PRECEDENT]'s case (supra). But the Apex Court did not agree with the contention of the Insurance Company, The Apex Court noted that the owner of the vehicle having satisfied himself that the driver had a licence and was driving competently, hired his services. Therefore held that there was no breach of [SECTION] of the [ACT] and the insurer would not be absolved of liability. It was further held that if ultimately the licence were found to be fake, the insurer would continue to be liable unless, he proves that the owner/insured was aware of the fact and had still permitted that person to drive. Ultimately it was held that even in such a case i.e., where the driver is having a fake licence, the insurer would remain liable to the innocent third party but may be able to recover the amount from the insured. In this case the Apex Court reiterated and affirmed the view of the earlier judgment in [PRECEDENT] 's case (supra).
11. Further in the latest judgment of the Apex Court in [PRECEDENT]'s case (supra), their Lordships while reiterating the principle laid down in cases [PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT] (supra), also clarified that the judgment rendered in [PRECEDENT], would be prospective in operation i.e., with effect from 3.12.2002.
12. In the said judgment [PRECEDENT] (supra), the apex Court while considering the amendment brought to [SECTION] of the [ACT], by virtue of [ACT], held at paragraph No. 17 of the judgment as under:
"By reason of the 1994 Amendment what was added is "including the owner of the goods or his authorized representative carried in the vehicle". The liability of the owner of the vehicle to insure it compulsorily, thus, by reason of the aforementioned amendment included only the owner of the goods or his authorized representative carried in the vehicle besides the third parties. The intention of the parliament, therefore, could not have been that the words 'any person' occurring in [SECTION] would cover all persons who were travelling in a goods carriage in any capacity whatsoever. If such was the intention there was no necessity of the Parliament to carry out an amendment inasmuch as expression 'any person' contained in [SECTION] would have included the owner of the goods or his authorized representative besides the passengers who are gratuitous or otherwise."
13. The Apex Court in the above judgment [PRECEDENT] (supra) had also taken into consideration the observations made in earlier judgment in [PRECEDENT]'s case (supra), with regard to the words 'any person' occurring in [SECTION] of the [ACT]. The said observation to the extent relevant is re-extracted as under for ready reference:
"26. In view of the changes in the relevant provisions in the 1988 Act vis-a-vis the 1939 Act, we are of the opinion that the meaning of the words "any person" must also be attributed having regard to the context in which they have been used i.e., a 'third party'
14. The Apex Court in this latest judgment [PRECEDENT] (supra) further held at paragraph No. 21 as under:
" We, therefore, are of the opinion that the interest of justice will be sub-served if the appellant herein is directed to satisfy the awarded amount in favour, of the claimant if not already satisfied and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. For the purpose of such recovery, it would not be necessary for insurer to file a separate suit but it may initiate a proceeding before the 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 "
15. If all the above three judgments are read together, the intention of the Apex Court though under different contexts is crystal clear i.e., even if there is violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, either by way of insured vehicle being driven by a driver not possessing valid licence or the insured vehicle carrying gratuitous passengers, or violation of the terms and conditions of the policy in any other manner, the liability of the insurer to pay compensation to the third party - injured, does not cease. At best, the insurer after paying the compensation to the injured can later recover the same from the insured, by proving the alleged breach of policy conditions since the accident occurred prior to 3.12.2002 i.e., the date of the judgment in [PRECEDENT]'s case (supra).
16. In the light of the above discussion, the contention of the Insurance Company that it is not liable to pay compensation as there was violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, cannot be sustained and the Insurance Company shall pay awarded compensation first to the claimants and if so chooses can recover the same from the insured by proving the alleged violations of the terms and conditions of the policy.
17. Furthermore I am of the considered view that the insurance company shall not resort to litigation just on the ground that some legal issue is involved, particularly when the amounts of compensation awarded are very meager and more particularly where there is a valid insurance policy. No doubt as and when serious questions of law are involved, this Court is expected to record its findings and opinion with reasons. But in the present case it is very sad to note that the Insurance Company is challenging the award of the Tribunal granting meager amounts ranging from Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- to the injured persons. In the present day's context, the Insurance Company should think of resolving the issues by way of resorting to alternative disputes resolution mechanism instead of fighting litigation by way of appeals in Courts by spending considerable amounts.
18. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in all these appeals and they are accordingly dismissed at the stage of. admission by confirming the impugned awards.
19. In view of the above finding recorded, in the main appeals, no orders need be passed in the petitions filed to condone the delay in preferring the appeals and the same are also accordingly dismissed.