THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CMA No.626 of 2002 The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v. Pallapu Venkaiah and others THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CMA No.626 of 2002 Oral Judgment: 1) This appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company challenging the award dated 16-8-2000 in OP No.646 of 1996 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Nalgonda. 2) Brief facts of the case are that on 13-6-1996 at about 7.00 a.m. while P. Yellamma ( deceased ) was traveling on a lorry loaded with cement from Kodad to Hyderabad and when it reached the outskirts of Durajpally village, a tanker bearing no. HR29-C561 came in rash and negligent manner from Hyderabad side and dashed the lorry in which the deceased was traveling, consequently the deceased sustained grievous injuries and while taking treatment she died in the hospital. The husband of the deceased filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.100000/- from the owner and insurer of the lorry involved in the accident. The Tribunal on consideration of the evidence on record held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the oil tanker and awarded compensation of Rs.65,000/- payable jointly and severally by R2- Insurance Company and R.3 owner of the oil tanker. 3) It is seen from the record that the first respondent in O.P. has sold the offending vehicle to the R.3 and therefore R.3 was impleaded in the OP and that the first respondent also addressed letter to the effect that the policy may be cancelled in respect of the vehicle in question and balance amount may be refunded to him. The Tribunal on evidence held that except filing Ex.B.1 to B.3, respondent No.2- Insurance company has not made clear as to what happened to the remaining insurance amount, and therefore it was presumed that the policy has been continued for the said vehicle even after purchase of the vehicle by the third respondent, and thus allowed the O.P. making the appellant-Insurance Company and the 3rd respondent jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 4) It is now represented by Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant that the issue involved in this appeal is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court reported in ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. NANJAPPAN ( 2004(2) ACJ 721 ). The relevant portion of the order of the Supreme Court reads as under : “ The view of the High Court cannot be maintained in view of what has been stated in Asha Rani's case (supra) and Devireddy's case (supra ). To that extent the judgment of the High court is unsustainable. At the same time, the observations of this Court in Baljit Kaur's case (supra) also need to be noted. In para 21 of the judgment, it was observed as follows: "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 as 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 decision of this Court in Satpal Singh (supra ). The said decision has been overuled 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 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 of driver of the vehicle involved in the accident inasmuch as can be resolved by the tribunal in such a proceeding. " ( 8 ) Therefore, while setting aside the judgment of the High Court we direct in terms of what has been stated in Baljit Kaur's case (supra) that the insurer shall pay the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal, about which there was no dispute raised, to the respondent- claimants within three months from today. 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 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. Before release of the amount to the insured, owner of the vehicle shall be issued a notice and he shall be required to furnish security for the entire amount which the insurer will pay to the claimants. The offending vehicle shall be attached, as a part of the security. If necessity arises the executing Court shall take assistance of the concerned Regional Transport authority. The executing Court shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as to the manner in which the insured, 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 the securities to be furnished or from any other property or properties of the owner of the vehicle, the insured. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs. Appeal disposed of accordingly. 5) Recording the submission of the learned standing counsel, the appeal is allowed in part in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in NANJAPPAN’s case (supra). No costs. GM, J KK/17-6-2010 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CMA No.626 of 2002 17-6-2010