IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL A.O. NO. 320 OF 2005 1- Smt. Anita W/o Late Vikram Singh, 2- Km. Sakshi D/o Late Vikram Singh, 3- Smt. Atar Kali W/o Atar Singh, 4- Muneesh Kumar S/o Atar Singh, All R/o Village Shankarpuri, P.S. Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar .... Appellants. Vs. 1- New India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Brach Manager, Branch Office, Muzaffarnagar. 2- Ranbir Singh S/o Janki Das R/o House No. 73, Kisan Bazar Navin Mandi Sthal, Muzaffarnagar. 3- Dharam Pal Singh S/o Tej Ram Singh R/o Village Bijwada, P.S. Binoli, District Baghpath ... Respondents. Sri Rajendra Singh, Advocate for the appellants. Sri R.B. Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondent No. 1. Dated: 25-3-2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred by the claimants against the judgment and award dated 11.11.2003, passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/ Addl. District Judge, Roorkee, in MACP No. 87 of 1999. 2- Brief facts of the case are that Vikram Singh, who was riding in his Scooter bearing registration No. DL-6 S-7163, has died in the accident as the driver of Truck 2 No. U.P. 12-6660 , dashed the Scooter from back side. The claimants the legal heirs of the deceased filed claim petition for award of compensation. 3- The owner and driver of the offending truck did not contest the claim petition. 4- The insurer of the said truck, New India Assurance Company contested the claim before the Tribunal. It alleged that the accident occurred due to rashness of the Scooterist and the truck driver had no valid driving licence and registration etc. 5- The Tribunal framed relevant issues in the petition and after the parties led evidence, the Tribunal passed the impugned award decreeing the petition for a sum of Rs. 2,66,500/- against the owner of the offending truck along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of final payment. 6- The claimants have preferred this appeal for the relief that the insurance company pay be directed to pay the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, against the owner of the Truck. 7- Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8- Learned counsel for the claimants/ appellants has submitted that the amount of the impugned award may not be recovered from the owner of the Truck, against whom the Tribunal has passed the decree, therefore, direction be issued to the Insurance Company to pay the compensation. 3 9- On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company, has opposed the submission raised by the learned counsel for the claimants/appellants, and contended that the Tribunal has passed the award against the owner of the offending Truck and the claimants can not seek direction from this Court that the amount be paid by the Insurance Company. 10- Having considered the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any substance in this present appeal. The reason is that the Tribunal has passed the award against the owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company was exonerated from the liability, as there was breach of terms of insurance policy. Against the said award the owner/driver have not preferred appeal. The claimants cannot seek direction from this court by filing this appeal that instead of the owner of the offending vehicle, the insurance company be directed to pay compensation on the ground that the amount may not be recovered from the owner. 11- The appeal lacks merit and accordingly is dismissed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB