Civil Revision No. 4284 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 4284 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 5.8.2009 Sheo Karan ......petitioner Versus National Insurance Company Limited and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Gourav Jain, Advocate. for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. Vide this revision petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.6.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge, Fatehabad in Execution Petition No.73 and for directing the lower Court to allow the objections of the petitioner. Om Parkash had filed a claim petition before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehabad claiming compensation on account of injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicle accident on 14.1.2005. The said claim petition was allowed vide award dated Civil Revision No. 4284 of 2009 (O&M) 2 13.4.2006. While deciding Issue No.3, it was held that the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimant but could recover the same from the insured, if so desired. It was found that the driver of the vehicle in question was not holding a valid and effective driving licence as the licence possessed by the driver did not authorise him to drive the category of Heavy Transport Vehicles. Moreover, the said driving licence was never renewed after the year 1999 for authorising the driver to drive any category of vehicles. The said finding was given after appreciating the evidence led by the Insurance Company in this regard. The driver as well as the owner of the vehicle had failed to rebut the evidence led by the Insurance Company in this regard. Now the Insurance Company has filed an execution petition against the owner of the vehicle. Vide the impugned order the objections filed by the insured were dismissed. Hence, the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Insurance company could file a separate suit for recovery but could not seek recovery of the amount paid by it to the claimant by filing an execution petition. It has been held by the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and others Vol.CXXXVI (2004-1) PLR 510 as under:- “(ix) The claims tribunal constituted under Section 165 read with Section 168 is empowered to adjudicate all Civil Revision No. 4284 of 2009 (O&M) 3 claims in respect of the accidents involving death or of badly injury or damage to property of third party arising in use of motor vehicle. The said power of the tribunal is not restricted to decide the claims inter se between claimant or claimants on one side and insured, insurer and driver on the other. In the course of adjudicating the claim for compensation and to decide the availability of defence or defences to the insurer, the Tribunal has necessarily the power and jurisdiction to decide disputes inter se between insurer and insured in the course of adjudication of claim for compensation by the claimants and the award made thereon is enforceable and executable in the same manner as provided in Section 174 of the Act for enforcement and execution of the award in favour of the claimants. (x)When an adjudication of the claim under the Act the tribunal arrives at a conclusion that the insurer has satisfactorily proved its defence in accordance with the provisions of Section 149 (2) read with Sub Section (7), as interpreted by this Court above, the Tribunal can direct that the insurer is liable to be reimbursed by the insured for the compensation and other amounts which it has been compelled to pay to the third party under the award of the tribunal. Such determination of claim Civil Revision No. 4284 of 2009 (O&M) 4 by the Tribunal will be enforceable and the money found due to the insurer from the insured will be recoverable on a certificate issued by the tribunal to the Collector in the same manner under Section 174 of the Act as arrears of land revenue. The certificate will be issued for the recovery as arrears of land revenue only if, as required by sub-section (3) of Section 168 of the Act, the insured fails to deposit the amount awarded in favour of the insurer within thirty days from the date of announcement of the award by the tribunal. (xi) The provisions contained in sub-section (4) with proviso thereunder and sub-section (5) which are intended to cover specified contingencies mentioned therein to enable the insurer to recover amount paid under the contract of insurance on behalf of the insured can be taken recourse of by the tribunal and be extended to claims and defences of insurer against insured by relegating them to the remedy before regular court in cases where on given facts and circumstances adjudication of their claims inter se might delay the adjudication of the claims of the victims.” Thus, in a case where there are disputed questions of fact, the Insurance Company can be given a liberty to seek recovery by filing a separate civil suit. However, in the present case the owner Civil Revision No. 4284 of 2009 (O&M) 5 of the vehicle was duly represented before the Tribunal. As is evident from perusal of the award Annexure P-1, Insurance Company had summoned the record from the licencing authority and it was established that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence. The driver of the vehicle was not authorised to drive a heavy transport vehicle, whereas, at the time of accident, the driver was driving a truck. In the present case the Insurance company was not relegated to the Civil Court to seek recovery of the amount in question from the insured by the Tribunal. In these circumstances, the Insurance Company could claim the amount paid by it to the claimant by filing the execution application. Hence, the learned Executing Court had rightly dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner. No ground for interference is made out. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE August 05, 2009 anita