&•>\^ SingieBench : Hon'bieShnDiliBBaosaheb^leshmykh.J. I.A.(C)No.1S^of2008 Branch Manager, Bajai Allianz Generat insurance Company Limited, Shiv Mohan Bhawsn, Vidhan Sabha Road, Pandri, Raipur(C.G.) (iNSURER) Mankamal Kaur, D/o Shri Jaswant Slngh, aged about 21 years, R/o Shiv Niwas, Santrabadi, P.S. Mohan Nagar, Tahsil and District Durg (C.G.) (CLAiMANT) Ghanshyam Banjare, aged about 23 years, S/o Ramoharan Banjare, R/o Viilage Sawatpur, Post Sargaon, P.S. Him.'District Bitaspur (C.G.) (DRIVER) Ramcharan Banjare, aged about 55 years, S/o Bisauha Ram Banjare, R/o Viliage Sawatpur, Post Sargaon, P.S. Hirri, DistrictBilaspur(C.G.) (OWNER) Msmorandym ofaBpeai underSection 173^oltheN!^tor Vehides Act 1 as_amended_bv Act of 1994. present ;- Shri Shashank Thakur, counsel for the appellant. 3. (Passed on this 2nd day of December, 2008) ^ rieard on admission. (2) The appellanUinsurer is aggrieved by the award dated 29-08-2008 passed by the 7*' Additional Motor Aocicients Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Duig (henoeforth "the Tribunal") in Claim Case No.27 of 2007 whereby the Tribunal has whiie recording a finding of breach of essentia! condition of the policy ordered insurer first to pay the total amount of compensation awarded by it and given it the right to recover the same from the owner of the vehicie. (3) It is not in dispute that the Mankamal Kaur who was injured in the acoident was a third party and the insurer was statutoriiy liable to oover the risk of the injured. !n this vtew of the matter, the deoision rendered by this Court in United irsdia Insurance Company Limited Uirough its Branch Manager Vs. Kunjbihari Wlishra and Others on 26" February, 2008 in M-A.(C.)No.44 of 2007, app!ies with fuli foree to the present case. In para 16 of the above decjslon, this Court has observed as under:- —- - - - --~ .^Sste'tet.. ^•"^"^ § %»JJ \ 1 I i r^ j \.jg^jy .flS'8' 1 -2.- •ff-^-r-fa^ "Admittedly, respondent No.l/claimant, a pedestrian, who was knocked down by the offending vehicie driven by respondent No.2 is a third party, whose risk was statutorily covered by the insurer under the policy of insuranoe. In view of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co., Shimia vs. Kamla and Others (supra), insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh and (supra), Nationa! insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Laxmi Narain Dhut (supra) and a Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Pushpabai and others vs. PadumnaSi Ma!l and Others. (supra) and aiso in view of the fact that the owner and driver of the offending vehicle were not oontesting the application for compensation and had remained ex parte. the Tribunal had jurisdiotion and was justified in ordering the insurance company fo pay the compensation awarded and reoover it from the owner. Even in Sardari and others vs. lushil Kumar and others (supra), the Supreme Court has in paragraph 6 observed that in certain fact situations, the Court white fastening the liability on the owner ofthe vehicle may direot the Insurance Company to pay to the claimants the award amount with liberty to it to reoover the same from the owner-Jhere is, thus, no illegality in the impugned award. The appeai is accordingly dismissed. Since the injured person in this accidert was a third party and the insurer was statutorily 'iabie to cover the risk of the injured. The Tribunal, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was thus justined in passing an order of pay and recover against the insurer. (4) There is no merit in this appea! which is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Tu^ane