IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA FAO (MVA) No. 491 of 2000 Reserved on : 25th September, 2008 Date of Decision: 17th October, 2008 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Appellant Versus Giano Devi and others Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol,J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant: Mr.Anup Rattan, Advocate, vice counsel. For respondent No.1: Mr.K.B.Khajuria, Advocate. For respondents No.2 & 3: Mr.Rajiv Sirkeck, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J. When the matter was taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the parties jointly agreed that the decision of the Appeals No.55 to 57 of 2008, would have a bearing on the controversy in the present appeal. In the aforesaid appeals, it has been held that the driver of the vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence, as such, in view of breach of the conditions of policy, the Insurer was not liable to indemnify the insured for the claims awarded in favour of various claims. The present appeal arises out of award dated 21.8.2000 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chamba Division, Chamba, H.P. in MACT Petition No.20 of 1996. Whether the reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the Judgment? 2 Vehicle No.HPS-7437 owned by Shri Dharam Parkash, being driven by Shri Bishan Dass met with an accident at Nirmand, Kullu, H.P. In the said accident, various persons received injuries and consequently died. Various Claim Petitions were filed either by the legal heirs or by the injured persons claiming compensation before different Tribunals in the State of Himachal Pradesh and different amount of compensations were awarded. The vehicle was insured with the United India Insurance Company Limited and as such, the Insurer was held liable to indemnify the insured and pay the awarded amount. Various appeals assailing the awards passed by Tribunals were filed before this Court. While the issues with regard to the negligence of the driver, the claimants entitlement and amount of compensation decided in their favour were upheld, but, however on the limited question of liability of the Insurance Company to indemnify the owner (Issue No.3) and also Issue No.4, the matter was remanded back to the Tribunal for consideration afresh, after affording due opportunity to the necessary parties of leading fresh evidence. The claimant Smt. Giano Devi filed a Claim Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming a sum of Rs.10 lacs as compensation on account of death of her son Shri Pawan Kumar. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- “1. Whether deceased Shyam Lal died on which accident of truck No. HPS-7437 which was being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.3? OPP. 3 2. If issue No.1 is proved in the affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled and from whom? OPP. 3. Whether the driver was not having a valid licence and the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner of the truck? OPP. 4. Whether deceased Shyam Lal was an unauthorized passenger, if so, its effect? OPR-2. 5. Relief.” The Tribunal held that driver Shri Bhisan Dass was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, which caused the accident and as a result Shri Pawan Kumar sustained injuries and finally succumbed to the same. On issue No.2, the Tribunal held that at the time of the accident the driver was having a valid driving licence and as such the Insurance Company was liable to indemnify the owner. The plea of the Insurance Company for appointment of Local Commissioner to verify the genuineness of the driving licence was turned down as the Court found that there was no need to appoint any commission. On the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the claimants. The Insurance Company has filed the present appeal and no cross-objections were either filed by the owner, driver or the claimants. Therefore, the scope of the present appeal is narrow and limited only to Issue No.2. During the pendency of the appeal, the Insurance Company also filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151, CPC seeking to place on record certified copy of judgment passed by 4 MACT, Rampur Bushahr, in MAC Petition No.11 of 1995/205, decided on 12.10.2007, alongwith copy of the evidence led by the Insurance Company pursuant to the remand orders passed by this Court in FAOs No.83, 97 and 336 of 2008, which arose out of claim petitions filed by various claimants before the Motor accident Claims Tribunal at Rampur Bushar, H.P. The said Claim petitions also arose out of the very same accident pertaining to which the claim petition was filed before the Tribunal at Chamba, H.P. In the appeals filed assailing the awards pursuant to the remand this Court has already held in FAOs No.55 of 2008 alongwith FAOs 56 and 57 of 2008 vide judgment of even date that the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident and the insured having committed serious breaches of the terms and conditions of the Insurance policy, the Insurer was not liable to indemnify the insured. In the present appeal the very same issue is also involved, as such, the present appeal is allowed. In FAOs No.83, 97 and 336 of 2008, this Court had directed that the money deposited by the Insurance Company be released to the claimants. The same order is passed in the present appeal also. However, it is clarified that it shall be open for the Insurance Company to recover the same from the owner. October 17, 2008 (Sanjay Karol) (C) Judge.