niGEMo. ——•••••«ita s <" ..f ^' IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Single Bendi M.A.fCl No. / 2010 ^ELLANT/RESPONDENT N0. 03 ^^^' ^•^•ySTr"' ^ ^•^w-*, ^;.:......^ VERSUS :- RESPONTDENTS/APPLICANT: ^ ^ ^ ^' ^T}^he United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through, Divisional Manager, Shanti Palace Second Floor Chakradhar Chowk Raigarh (C.G.) 1. Maryanush Kujure & Others S/o Shanti Nuish Kujur Aged about 36 Years Resident of Village Baihamunda, Thana/ Thasil - Gharghora Zilla Raigarh (C.G.) .'2. Rajesh Agrawal S/o Shiv Charan Lal aged about - 36 Years, Occupation- Driver Resident of Chhal, Nawapara, Thana - Chhal, Zilla - Raigarh 3. Nand Kumar Jaiswal S/o Sahdev Prasad Aged about- 37 Years, Resident ofChhal. Thana Cbhal, Tahasil - Dharamjay- Garh Zilla" Raigarh (C.G.) .:;rt,iaag6i8!U,-&^^"—W-^-A-^K^!fhWv.'WS:.MS,W MISC. APPEAL_UNDER SECTTON'173 OF THE ^IQTOP VFHTFLE ACT, 1988 ,,K HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR MACNo. 762 of 2010 APPELLANT RESPONDENTS The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. VERSUS : Maryanush Kujure & others (APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT) (SB: Hon'bleMr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.l ^. I^N^ Present : Smt. ChitraShrivastava,Advocate-fortheappellant. Shri KN Nande, Advocate for the respondent No. 1. Shri SRJ Jaiswal, Advocate for respondent No.3. 1. -} ORALORDER (Passed on 21.11.2011) This is insurer's appeal against the award dated 29.04.2010 passed by lilrd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Raigarh (for short 'the Tribunal') in claim case No. 109/08. As against compensation of Rs. 14,46,296/- claimed by claimant/respondent No. 1 herein by filing application before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the MV Act') for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 15.12.2007, the Tribunal hasawarded a total sum of Rs. 1,17,105/- along with interest @ 6 percent per annum from the date of application till its actual payment holding the respondent/driver and owner liable for its payment and exonerated the insurance company from its liabitity to pay compensation. The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of evidence led, material placed and submission made by the parties, held : the accident v had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Hero Honda motorcyde bearing registration No. CG-13-B-6001 by its driver Rajesh Agrawal/respondent No. 2; claimant/respondent No. 1 sustained injuries in the said accident; appellant/jnsurance company not liable for payment of compensation as it had estabiished violation of policy conditions; assessed and awarded aforesaid sum as compensation in favour of claimant and as against the respondenVdriver and owner. However, a direction has been given to the appellant/insurance company to fjrst pay the award amount to the claimant and then to recover it from the owner and or driver of the vehicle. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the above direction of pay and recover, the instant appeal has been preferred by the insurance company. Smt. Chitra Shrivastava, learned counsei appearing for the appel!ant would submit: the Tribunal has erred in directing the appellant to first pay the amount of compensation to the claimant and then to recover it from the owner and or driver of the vehicle. On the other hand, Shri KN Nande, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1/claimant supported the award impugned and submitted the Tribunal has rightly directed the appellant/insurance company to first pay the amount of compensation to the claimant and then to recover it from the driver and or owner of the vehide in view of judgment of ~:<^3^^'y' |N^ Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh andothers1. 7. I have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the award impugned as well as record ofthe Tribunal. 8. The Tribunal, having found, the vehicle was being driven by the driver without having valid and effective driving license and appetlanVinsurance company has successfully proved the violation of policy conditions, has rightly exonerated the insurance company from its liability to pay compensation to the claimant. Further, the Tribunal, in the light of judgment of Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh (Supra), has also rightly directed the appellant/insurance company to first pay the award amount to the daimant and then to recover it from the owner and or driver ofthevehicle. 9. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the appeal has no merit. 10. However, in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Pramod Kumar Agrawal & another v. Mushtari Begum (Smt.) and others2, it is ordered that appellanVinsurer shall deposit in the Tribunal the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimant/respondent No.1 within a period of three months. For the purpose of recovering the same from the insured, the insurer shall not be required to file a suit. It may initiate a proceeding before the concerned executing court as if the 12004(3)SCC297 2 2004 (8) SCC 667 the dispute between the insurer and the owner was the subject matter of determination between the Tribunal and the issue is decided against the owner and in favour of insurer. 11. Before release of the award amount to the claimant, the Tribunal shall jssue notice to the insured/owner of the vehicle requiring hjm to furnish surety for the entire amount which the insurer will pay to the claimant/respondent No. 1. 12. The offending vehicle shall be attached, as a part of the security. If necessity arises, the executing court shall take assistance of the Regional Transport Authority concerned. The executing court shall pass appropriate order in accordance with law as to the manner in which the 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 securities to be furnished or from any other property or properties of the owner of the vehicle. 13. Appeal is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. Sahu Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge