IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH === F.A.O. No.26 of 2008 Date of Decision: 29.2.2008 National Insurance Company Ltd. --- Appellant Versus Eltahir A.M. Ali and others --- Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL --- PRESENT: Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. --- AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. This appeal at the instance of the insurer-National Insurance Company is directed against the award dated 8.10.2007, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh. The Tribunal, vide the impugned award, allowed the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and awarded a sum of Rs. Four lacs in favour of the claimants for the death of their daughter, Himanshi Eltahir, who at the relevant time was pursuing her studies as a Final-year student of BCA at Chandigarh and was less than 19 years of age. On 6.11.2004, the deceased was riding on her scooter. The offending car bearing registration No. CH03-M-3013 which was being driven rashly and negligently by Karan Prabhakar- respondent No.3 herein, struck against that scooter. Himanshi fell down on the ground, sustained injuries and later on died on 11.11.2004. Respondent No. 3 (driver); respondent No.4 (owner) and the appellant-Insurance F.A.O. No. 26 of 2008 Company of the car were held liable to pay the amount of compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- jointly and severally. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that finding of the Tribunal whereby the appellant was held liable to pay the compensation in the first instance and thereafter to recover the same from the owner of the offending car was illegal because the appellant- Insurance Company is not at all liable to pay compensation as at the time of the accident, the driver of the car was proved to be minor and, therefore, he could not hold a valid driving licence. He further submitted that since the victim was just a student of 18 years, the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants is on the higher side. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the award with his assistance. A perusal of the impugned award shows that on the basis of statement of RW-2 Satish Prabhakar, who is the father of the driver of the car, stated in clear terms that on the date of the accident, his son was less than 18 years of age and was, thus, not capable of possessing a driving licence. In the wake of this fact, the appellant was rightly held not entitled to indemnify the owner of the car. The owner of the car had got the offending vehicle insured with the appellant. It was in these circumstances, the Tribunal ordered that in the first instance, the amount of compensation shall be paid to the claimants by the appellant and the appellant would, thereafter, be entitled to recover the same from the owner of the car in terms of the insurance policy, Exhibit R-2. Thus, it is clear from the award that the Tribunal has conferred the recovery rights on the appellant, which is absolutely in consonance with the provisions of the law. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the same, in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be said to be 2 F.A.O. No. 26 of 2008 excessive. No illegality of any sort could be pointed out in the award, so as to persuade this Court to interfere therewith. In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) February 29, 2008 JUDGE *RKMALIK* 3