IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 599 of 2006 United India Insurance Company Ltd. … Appellant Vs Smt. Kishwar & others … Respondents Sri D.S. Patni, learned counsel for the appellant Sri Mohd. Safdar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 Sri Hari Mohan Bhatia, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Arvind Vashisth, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellant/United India Insurance Company Ltd. against the judgment and award dated 17.07.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/District Judge, Haridwar in Motor Accident Claim Petition no. 84 of 1996, Smt. Kishwar & others Vs Rakesh Kumar Bansal & others whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,85,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of actual payment to the claimants as compensation. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 29.06.1996 at about 08:00 a.m., the deceased Liaquat Ali was going on the bicycle, when he reached near Payal Orchestra, Manir Kotla Road suddenly, a truck bearing registration No. RNK/6921 which was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the said bicycle and crushed the deceased, due to injuries sustained by him, he had died. According to the claim petition, the deceased was 28 years of age and used to earning Rs. 3,000/- per month by doing painting work. The claimants are the dependent upon the deceased, therefore, 2 they have filed the claim petition before the Tribunal for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation. 3. The opposite parties contested the claim petition by filing their separate written statement before the Tribunal denying the allegations made in the claim petition. Thereafter, both the parties led evidence in support of their case. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available on record decreed the claim petition to the tune of Rs. 1,85,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the actual date of payment vide judgment and award dated 17.07.2006. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the appellant/United India Insurance Company Ltd. has preferred this appeal before this Court. 5. Heard Sri D.S. Patni, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Mohd. Safdar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, Sri Hari Mohan Bhatia, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Arvind Vashisth, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 and perused the record. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted before the Court that at the time of the accident, the driver of the vehicle in question was not having the valid and effective driving licence. He has further contended that the Tribunal while deciding the issue No. 3 categorically held that driver of the vehicle in question was not having the valid and effective driving licence but in spited of that, the Tribunal fastened the liability of compensation upon the appellant/Insurance Company. In order to support his contention he has relied 3 upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Company Vs Nanjappan reported in AIR 2004 Supreme Court 1630. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents have not raised any argument in order to revert the submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellant. 8. I have gone through the aforesaid ruling and after a careful scrutiny of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, I find substance in the submission of learned counsel for the appellant. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid decision has made observation that in the matters of breach of policy, the quantum of compensation shall be paid by the insurer and the same shall be recovered from the owner of the vehicle. The Hon’ble Apex Court also made provision that for the purpose of recovering the amount of compensation from insured, the insurer shall not be require 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. Before release of the amount the insured, owner of the vehicle shall be issued a notice and he shall be required to furnish security for the entire amount which the insurer will pay to the claimants. The offending vehicle shall 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 insured, 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, the insured. 4 From the perusal of the impugned judgment and award it is quite clear that on issue No. 3 the Tribunal has given a categorical finding that the driver of the vehicle in question was not having the valid and effective licence but the Tribunal in the operative portion of the judgment has not given specific direction that the insurer will have the recovery right from the owner of the vehicle in question. Therefore, the insurer will be at liberty to recover the amount of compensation from the insured in accordance with law laid down in the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court (Supra). 9. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the appeal is disposed of with the direction that the Tribunal shall adopt the procedure, which has been laid down in the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court (Supra). The appellant may apply before the Tribunal for recovering of the amount of compensation to be paid by him. The Tribunal is directed to proceed for the Execution Court in order to recover the money from the owner of the vehicle in accordance with the procedure laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid decision. 10. With the aforesaid observation, the appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs. 11. The statutory amount deposited by the appellant at the time of filing the appeal be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 04.09.2008 ASWAL