HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A.NO. 2599 OF 2007 JUDGMENT: This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 30.10.2006 passed by the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Court below’) in OP No. 984 of 2004 filed by the claimant claiming compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- for the death of one Ramulu in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 22.1.2004 at about 14.45 hours while the deceased was travelling in a jeep bearing No. AP 20U 8665 from Balanagar to Jadcherla, in the outskirts of Ranga Reddyguda, a Van bearing No. AP-9W-6725 came from opposite direction and the driver of the jeep lost his control over the vehicle and gave dash against the Van and due to which, the deceased died on the spot. First respondent previous owner of the jeep and the second respondent present owner of the jeep bearing No. AP 20U8665 remained ex parte and the third respondent- National Insurance Company Limited filed its counter denying the averments made in the petition. 2. The Tribunal held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep bearing No. AP 20U 8665 and therefore, respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned the Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,89,000/- to the claimants with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the National Insurance Company Limited. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal erred in passing an award for a sum of Rs. 1,89,000/- against the Insurance Company. He also submits that the Tribunal ought to have seen that the insured violated the terms and conditions of the policy and neither the transfer of the ownership of the vehicle nor the change of the nature of user of the vehicle were informed to the appellant/insurance company. He relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPNAY LIMITED VS. BALJIT KAUR AND OTHERS[1]. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for respondents/claimants 1 and 2 submits that the order of the Tribunal is quite reasonable and there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and also perused the entire material made available on record. 6. It is evident from the record that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep bearing No. AP 20U 8665 and the deceased died on the spot. The Tribunal taking into consideration the evidence of PW-1, wife of the deceased that her husband was doing agricultural and labour work and he was getting Rs. 3,000/- per month, his monthly income was assessed at Rs 50/- per day and per month 1,500/- and out of that 1/3rd amount was deducted towards personal and living expenses and assessed his monthly contribution towards his family at Rs. 1,000/- and per annum it come to Rs. 12,000/-. As the age of the deceased is 50 years the relevant and appropriate multiplier 13 was applied and assessed the compensation at Rs. 1,56,000/-. An amount of Rs. 15,000/- was granted towards loss of consortium and Rs. 15,000/- was granted towards loss of estate and Rs., 3,000/- was granted towards funeral expenses and transport charges. Thus, the Tribunal granted total amount of Rs. 1,89,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5%. per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against all the respondents, who are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 7. Be that as it may, as per the evidence of RW-1, Assistant Manger of the Insurance Company that the insurance policy was issued to the jeep as a private vehicle, but the vehicle was used as a Maxi cab. The Supreme Court in M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPNAY LIMITED VS. BALJIT KAUR AND OTHERS (supra), as relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, observed that instead of insurer the owner of the vehicle shall be liable to satisfy the decree and this legal position shall have prospective effect. The relevant portion at paragraph 21 of the judgment reads thus: “21. The upshot of the aforementioned discussions is that instead and in place of the insurer the owner of the vehicle shall be liable to satisfy the decree. The question, however, would be as to whether keeping in view the fact that the law was not clear so long such a direction would be fair and equitable. We do not think so. We, therefore, clarify the legal position, which shall have prospective effect. The Tribunal as also the High Court had proceeded in terms of the decisions of this Court in Satpal Singh (supra). The said decision has been overruled only in Asha Rani (supra). We therefore, are of the opinion that the interest of justice will be sub- served if the appellant herein is directed to satisfy the awarded amount in favour of the claimant if not already satisfied and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. For the purpose of such recovery, it would not be necessary for the insurer to file a separate suit but it may initiate a proceeding before the executing court as if the dispute between the insurer and the owner was the subject matter of determination before the tribunal and the issue is decided against the owner and in favour of the insurer. We have issued the aforementioned directions having regard to the scope and purport of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in terms whereof it is not only entitled to determine the amount of claim as put forth by the claimant for recovery thereof from the insurer, owner or driver of the vehicle jointly or severally but also the dispute between the insurer on the one hand and the owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident inasmuch as can be resolved by the tribunal in such a proceeding.” 8. In view of the above judgment of the Supreme Court and also in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant- Insurance Company is directed to pay the compensation as awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants and recovery the same, from the owner of the jeep bearing No. AP 20U 8665. 9. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 24.2.2011 KA [1] 2004 (1) SUPREME 3