THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR MA CMA NO. 709 OF 2007 Date of order: 20.7.2010 Between: The United India Insurance Company Limited represented by its Manager …Appellant and Thokkala Laxmi and others ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR MA CMA NO. 709 OF 2007 JUDGMENT: This is an appeal by the Insurance Company against the award of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V-Addl. District Judge, Karimnagar (for short “the Tribunal’) in O.P.No. 411 of 2005, dated 2nd August, 2006 whereunder compensation of Rs.3,47,500/- was awarded. Though this appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company with respect to challenging the findings of the Tribunal on the aspect of negligence of the offending vehicle as well as quantification of the compensation, the ultimate finding of the Tribunal in paragraph-11 of its order shows that the Insurance company was held not liable on account of violation of insurance policy by the owner of the offending vehicle. In view of that finding, therefore, all other questions sought to be raised by the appellant- insurance company do not arise for consideration, inasmuch as the appellant has got the relief before the Tribunal itself that it is not liable for the compensation. However, the appeal survives only to the extent of order of the Tribunal directing the appellant-insurance company to pay the compensation amount to the claimants and recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in national Insurance Company Limited Vs. Baljit Kaur and others [1]. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company contends that the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case and the Tribunal committed an error in relying upon the said decision. He also submits that when the insurance company is held not liable, the direction to pay and recover the amount of compensation is not warranted. The learned counsel also submits that recently in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Parvathneni and another [2] the Supreme Court has doubted the correctness of such direction being given in various decisions of the Supreme Court and referred the matter for consideration by a larger Bench and the decision of the larger Bench is awaited. However, it cannot be denied as on today the decision in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Kusum Rai [3] and other decisions reported in Samundra Devi Vs. Narendra Kaur [4], National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Yellamma [5], New India Insurance Co. Vs. Darshana Devi [6] and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Brij Mohan [7] clearly hold that even in cases the insurance company was not liable, a direction was given to the insurance company to pay and recover the amount of compensation, however, the insurance company was given liberty to approach the Tribunal in execution proceedings and recover the amount from the owner of the offending vehicle without taking up any independent proceedings for recovery. All those decisions are, therefore, operative and binding as on today and though, for different reasons, and in view of other decisions of the Supreme Court, the direction of the Tribunal in paragraph- 11 of its order, therefore, deserves to be confirmed. In that view of the matter, no interference is warranted in the impugned order. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. However, no order as to costs. _________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dt. 20.7.2010 KR [1] 2004 (1) ALD 98 (SC) [2] (2009) 8 Supreme Court Cases 785 [3] (2006) 4 SCC 250 [4] (2008) 9 SCC 100 [5] (2008) 7 SCC 526 [6] (2008) 7 SCC 416 [7] (2007) 7 SCC 56