HjGH COURT OP CHHATTISGARH. BILA8PUR DB: HON»BLBI.M. QUDDUSI & HON'BLE N.K. AGARWAL, JJ M.AtCI No. 1107 of 2010 Vs. APPEARANCE: Mr. Deepak Gupta, counselfor the appeUaat APPELLANT The New India Assuraace Coinpaay Ltd,, fhrough its Maaager, Satti Guri Chowk, Raigarh District : Through Divisional Maaager, fhe New India Assuraace Co, Ltd,, BUaspur (C,G), RBSPONDBNTS iN Smt. Leela Bai Patel, Wife of Late Vidyadhar Patel, aged about 28 years. l(b) Deepak Patel, s/o Late Vidyadhar Patel, aged about 12 years, l(c) Sandeep Patel, late Vidya Dhar Patel, aged about 10 years; R l(b) & R-l(c) beiag miaors, represented fhrough R"l(a) Sint. Leela Bai ~ AU residents of Grain Jhabga, Thaaa and Tahsel Dharainjagarh, Distdct Raigarh (C.G) 2 Hira Say Rafhiya, occupation Driver, resident of Gram Kodwaripara, Dharamjaygarh, Tahsel Dharaaijaygarh, Distorict Raigarh (C.G). Driver of Tractor No.CG/13/A/ 3642) 3. KaUaash Narayan Yadav, s/o Shri D, P. Yhadav, Occupation owiier of Vehicle Resideut of: Dharaaijaygarh, Distnct Raigarh (C.G.)- (Owner of Tractor No.CG/13/A/ 3642) 4. Pradhan Say, s/o Dhaa Say, Occupation ~ owner of Vehicle, resident of Sisringa, Tahsel Patthalgaon, Distt. Jashpur (C.G). Per I.M. QUDDUSI. J JUDGMBNT(ORAL} (08.11.2010) 01. This appeal has been filed by fhe Insuraace Coinpaay agaiast fhe roipugned award dated 02,08.2010 passed by fhe IV Motor Accident Clauns Tribrmal (FTC), Raigarh ia Claim Case No. 29/2009 whercby the Tribunal has directed fhe Insuraace Coinpao.y to pay fhe conipensation aad fhen recover ftie sarne froia fhe owner offhe ofiFendiag vehicle. 02. Brief facts of fhe case as per tiie version of fhe claiinaats are that on 07.07.2007 at about 9.15 a.m., Vidyadhar Patel alongwith his wife and children was conimg on his Motorcycle froBi viUage Jabga to their house. On the way at Khaoihar road near Baspat, one Tractor bearing Reg.No. C.G. 13-A/3642 which was bemg driven by one Hira Say Rathia (non-appUcaat no.l), rashly and negligently dashed fhe inotorcycle of fhe Vidyadhar, as a result of which he sustained serious iojuries aiid he was admitted ia Dharaijaigarh Hospital where durfcag fhe course of treatoient, he died. The claiaiants have niade claim to fhe tune of Rs.33,50,821/ - on different heads. 03. The Tribunal has held fhat fh.e accident has occurred on account of rash aad negligent driviag of tihie Tractor by its driver ui which Vidyadhar Patel has sustaiaed iajuries and died; fhe principle of contributoiy negUgence is appUcable ia fhis case aad the driver was not having vaUd and effective driviag Ucense. The Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.10,22,468/- which the Insuraace ,^1-.;^%. /fk\ '"[ 1 "'^ Coinpaay shall pninarily pay aad thereafter recover the same from fhe owner, 04. The niotor Accident Claiins Tnbunal has not imposed aay liabiUty upon fhe Insuraace Conipaay aad only ordered to pay and recover fhe ainount iavolved ia fhe award froni the owner ofthe vehicle. 05. Leanied coiinsel for fhe appellant has raised two contentions. The first contention is fhat fhe direction of Tribunal for payinent by fhe Insurance Coinpaay and fhen recoveiy of the said aaiount froni fhe owner is illegal aad fhe secoud contention is with regard to quaatum. 06. Witii regard to fhe first contention, Honyble fhe Apex Court ia case of NaUonal Insurance Co» Ltd.9 'Vs- Swam SSlngh reported ia (2004) 3 SCC 297 has laid down vide Para 83 ftiat "sub-section (5) of section 149 which imposes a MabiLlty on fhe iasurer niust also be given its fuU effect. The Iiisurance Company may not be Uable to satisfy the decree and, therefore, its Uability may be zero but it does not mean that it did not have initial Uability at aU« Thus, if the insurance company is made Uable to pay auy amount, it can recover the entire amount paid to the third party on behalf of the assured, If this iaterpretation is not given to the beneficent provisions of the Act haviag regard to its pxirport and object, we fail to see a situation where beneficent provisions can be given effect to. Sub- section (7) of Section 149 of fhe Act, to which poiated attention of the Court has been drawn by the leamed counsel for fhe petitioner, which is ia negative language inay ^ • •-.^ ; 07. 08. now be noticed. The said provision must be read with sub- section (1) fhereof. The figfit to avoid Mability in terms of sub-section (2) of sectioii 149 is restricted as has been discussed hereinbefore. It is one thing to say that the Insurance Companles are entitled to raise a defence but it is auother thing to say that despite the fact that its defence has been accepted having regard to the facts and circumstaiices of the case, the Tribuual has power to direct them to satisfy the decree at the first iastance and thett direct recovery of the same from tlie owner. These two raatters stand apart aad reqiiire contextual reading". (Bmphasis supplied), Therefore, fhe contention fhat fhe msurance compaay is raade Uable to pay the amount under fhe award aad fhen it can recover fhe same from the owner which is iUegal is not sustamable. So far as it relates to the second contention fhat is quaatiun of award, it has to be noticed fhat fhe Tribunal has not iniposed aay liabiUty upon fhe Insuraace Coinpaay aad fherefore, tlie Insuraiice Compaay is not aggneved ia fixiag fhe quaatuin by fhe Tribunal. However, ui case fhe aggrieved party fUes aa appeal before fhis Court, the question ofquaatuin would be considered. In view of the above, fhis appeal fatls and is fherefore disniissed at the inotion stage itsetf, Rao Sd/- LM.Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K.Agrawal Judge