) THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPELLANT M.A. (C) No.- ^'~)y /2009 Ssnah ps THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER, BRANCH OFF1CE KORBA, ^^ ^a3f gflcft ^ Vrs. RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS ^•^^^-f^ 9<ess^<t^'^ ^ Qa't.s6-'" ..'>-' .A /•i :-1. SMT. JAMUNA BAI AGE 36 YRS. W1FE <y OF RAMADHAR KENWAT, , 2. RAMADHAR KENWAT AGE 40YRS. S/0 ^ BOTIRAM KENWAT, , BOTH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SILADEHI, THANA BAMHNID1H, DISTT JANJGIR-CHAMPA (C.G.) RESPONDENTS/NON-APPLICANTS :- 3._ KESHAV PRASAD CIIANDRA AGE UKNWON; S/0 FAGURAM CHANDRA, RESIDENT VILLAGE BIRRA, THANA BAMHNIDIH. 4. LAXMINARAYAN PATEL, AGE 21 YRS. S/0 DILESHWAR, RESIDENT VILLEGE MOHADIH, THANA BAMHNIDIH. !L UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 THE HON'BLf APPELLANT RESPONDEN RESPONDJ :^> (s>,yy I^,<r ,:(>"' ' 4n^/,- , 3A'Harish Ohandra age aboyfc 37 years S/o l-.ata Keshav C'handra, i"i.'-?^l resident, Vi.llage-BArra. Dist. .rnjgir-Champa (^38.Prabhu Chandra age about 35 years S/o Late Keshav Ghandra. resideat, village-Birra, Dist. Janjgir-Champa 3C.Srat. Redhl.k.a Chandrs acs about 55:ysars W/0 tate Keshav ^.i^ ^ ehatidra, rssidsRt, vlllags'-Blr.ra Oist. 3'aaJgir-Champa ry ^^------------- AVV/V1V1. \//fsa^ \ fi.^£^1 ^ ^*S?¥:'?'^^r--AI gi •v3ss.y'~«s -'•? ijynj^uur e^u ^T'QSB a^r%i '^IJl M.A. Fcl No. 1328/21 The Orientai iurance Com! Korba (CG) iny ua. ;mt. Jamuna Bai and oths Presejit: Mr. Sudhlr Agrawal, counsel for the appel None forthe respondents, though served. iih i'6mAuaust.2011l ? ^^^ ? G,_Minhas This 'n-as been by the appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award of the i! Additionai Motor Accident Claims Tribuna! (FTC), Janjgir (in "the Tribunal"), dated 30 June, 2009 passed in Claim Csse No.23/09, exonerating the appellant/insurance company and at the time ordering fhe appetianfc'insurance company to pay th.e amount of compensation to the claimants and then recover the from the owner. 02. Brief of the are that on 17.6.2008 at about 5.30 pm deceased Vijendra Kumar was coming towards homs on bicycle. At that time, respondent No.4 - the driver of registration N-O.CG-11A/5683 (hereinafter referred to as "offending vehicle) by driving in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the bicycte of the dsceascd, as a rssu't, ths dscsassu feil do'/v'n on ths road and was run over by the offsnding vchicie. He was admittsd in hospital immsdialeiy, however, during treatment he on 18.6.2008. of the accident (odaed in Police Station: Bamhnideeh. nn+ MnO Kesponaent No.3 is tne owner OT tne onenasng vehidte, who has died during pendendy of this and the offending vehicle was insured witn the appeIlanVinsurance company at •the relevant time. The heirs of the deceased fiied a ciaim peSition under 166 of the Vehicies Act, 1988 (in_short "the Act, <- 2L ^. ^^^ 1988") for a total compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- for the of Vijendra Kumar under various heads. 03. However, learned Tribunat, hearing for the respective parties, on close scrutiny of the evidence led by the psrtiss, yy the impugned award granted a compensation of Rs. 1,82,000;'- in favour of the ciairnants. Though the appellant/insurance company was sxonerated of its liabiiityi yet it was directed to pay the amount of compensation to the at the first instance and fhereafter, recoverthe from the owner ofthe offending vehicle. 04. Heara learnsd counsel for the appellant/insurance company, psrusea ine LUK as aiso me smpugnea awara. 05. Learned counsel for tne appe!lant/insurance company has that after the insurance company, the Tribunal ,!J ^^i l, shoulu not have oraered it to pay the arnount of cornpensation to the claimants and then recover the same from the owner, therefore, the impugned is not iegaily sustainable. He fuslher has submitted Ehat cV6n in cases, in which the insurance company is exonerated, if ths insurance company Is directed to pay the amount of to the ciaimants with a right to recover it from the owner, then, in of the it is practicaliy impossible to recover the amount from the owner and as a of which, the amounts by the insurancs companies, which i-s public money, are not recovered. Therefore, he has t-hat for the said a'irection of pay and recover in the impugned a"\vard against She appellanuinsurarice company. th> in support of his contention, he ha judgment of the Hon'ble Suprerne Court in the of Vs. V. 8 SST.snd ordsr of this Court dated 28" April, 2011 passed in in the of tfie ,-., 06. There Is r.o dispute t'nat the instant case ss a case of 3 past:',; an of Rs.1,82,000/- with @ 6% p.a. has been as such, in view of the !aw laid down by the Bsnch of the Hon'bfe Apex Court in Co. Vs. AIR SC 1631 : "XI 3 SCC 297. the "K- 297, the direction by the Tribunai to the appeliant/insurance company to pay the amount of compensation to the ciaimants and then recover the from the owner, cannot be 'with and the to be affirmed. At th?s ^.;3m?s fim?s |f t?s npr^?s^?trv tn ^^fpr'ii^rri fhH Intfsr^^t nf thp ^i S^ •C^^ii i i^rfr- ^eS i E"^ u 1 L s^s s E'^--/V^^-^J'at;-iE V ^^ ^?EwS i cfc.fT^^^^<i^.l t»^ ^ ai^^ Et^^lV/^?^ <</f3 t<£aL^r- company and to that that the amount which is paid to the c'aimants by the insurance company under the order of this Court is from the owner of the vehicle. 07. In such circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Co. '/s. AOT €?-^ ^S*^^. F"rt-^..-'i .--*'- ^*i!S SC 7®30,in para-8,- has foliowing observations: "Therefore, while the judgment of the High Court we in of what has been in Baijit Kaur's (supra) that the insurer shal! pay the quanturn of compensation fixed by the Tribunai, about which then no dispute raised, to the responuents-clalmants within three months from today. For the purpose of recovering the same from the insured, the insurer not be required to file a suit. It may initiate a before the concerned ExecuflnQ Court as if the between the insurer and the owner was the subject matter of ctetermination before the Tribunal and the issue is decided against the ov/ner and in favour of the insurer. Bel of the amount to the claimants, owner of the be a notice and he shai! be required to furnish security for the entire amount which ihe insurer will pay to the claimants. The offending vehicie shall be attached, as a part of the security. If necessity arises the Executing Court shai'l assistance of the concerned Regional Transport authority. The Executing Court appropriate orders in accordance with law as to the manner in v/hich the insured, owner of the vehicle shall payment to the insurer. !n there is any defauft it be open.to the Executing'Court to direct realization by disposal of the to be furnished or from any other property or properties of the owner of the vehide, the '^. l^ insured. The aDDsa! is diSDOScd of in the aforesaid tes S ^A/ tp/3.^.^ ^^ '^L^ "Wt, i I'^F ^/5 E^^ L~^ tta^'±ur^.rf^S ^.ir i E E i Ju G S ^wr' •uA i ^*/E ^lu/^rt^ with "o as to costs." 08. Thus, in visw of the and observations given by the Hon'b'e Supreme Court in the of Nsnjappan and others (supra), the is of in terms of the diredions given by th< Hon'bte Supreme Court in the above cited case, which be by the Tribunal whiie the 09. No order as to costs. «^/ 10. Certified copy as per ruies. _.—— Sd/- G.MinhaJJudin Judge