IN THE HON'BLE HI6H COURT JUMCATURE AT BILASPUR Misc. Appeal FC1 No. ^5 OF 2011 Itofh Bftn^k APPELLANT IJ^URER r /iy ^ ^ ^yy/) w/^ ///^ y RESPONDENT/ ^ElAIMANT ^: ( ,Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, through Branch Manager, At Present bevendra Nagar Road, PS- bevendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS ^Rajkyrnar) Devengan S/o Nathu Ram Devangan, Aged 55 Years R/o House no.108/ Simga Karmachari Colony, P.S. Simga, Distt. Raipur (C.G). ,•'. Satparmeshwar Gupta< S/o Bhagirathi 6upta, R/o Mana Camp, Block-4, PSMana Camp, bistrict Raipur C.G. Add.no-2 B.M.Y Choroda , Qt.no-26/b Zone -I , Dist:Durg(C(5) ^hann^Banjare S/o Moti Lal Banjare R/o Kotrabhata, Post-Paloud, New Rajdhani, Raipur, bistt. Raipur (C.G). APPEAL U/S 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT AGAINST THE AWARb/ORbER DATED 21^04.2011 PASSEb BY "yh ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIbENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL RAIPUR fC.G.V PRESIDEb OVER ^-".___ ~ BY SHRI O.P.GUPTA IN C.T.NO." 19/2011. ^ QWNER '^- M ^, HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPELLANT Insurer RESPONDENTS iyi.A.(C)No. 689 OF 2011 Royal Sunelaram Aliiance insurance Company Limited. Versys Ram Kumar Deyvangan and ottiers. MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTiON 173 OF THE IVSOTOR VEHiCLEACT.1988 (SB: Hon'bte Mr. N.K. Agarwal. J.) Present : Mr. Devershi Thakur, counsej for the appeliant. Mr. Amiakant Tjwari, counsel for respondent No.1. Mr. Suresh Tandon, counse! for respondent No.3. AWARD (19.10.2011) With the consent ofthe parties, the;matter is heard finally. 1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the directjon of pay and recover by 4th Additional Motor Accident Ctaims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') passed jn Claim Case No. 19/2011 vide its award dated 21.04.2011, the Jnstant appeal has been preferred by appellant/ Royai Sundaram AIIiance Insurance Company Limited. 2. As against the compensationof Rs.17,70,000/-claimed by the cSaimant/respondent No.1 by filing clalm petjtion under Seetion 166 of the iVSotor Vehides Act on account ofinjuries sLBtained by hjm in the motor accident on 6.12.2009, learned Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.2,49,665/- as compensation aiong with interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of claim petition tiii its actual payment. 3, Learned Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence jed, held: the accident has occurred due to rash and negiigent driving of Metador bearing registration No.CG 04 JB 4754 by its driver/ respondent No. 2; clalmant Ram Kumar Devangan sustained multiple injuries in the said accident resulting in permanent disability; appellant/lnsurance Company js' not iiable for payment of compensatjon as vehicle was plight in violation of poiicy corajitions; ,\' ^l assessed and awarded aforesaid amount of compensation to the ciaimant. Tribunai further directed to the appellant/tnsurance Company to pay first amount of compensation to the claimant and then recover it from the owner of the vehicle. 4. Shri Devershi Thakur, ieamed counsel appearing for the appellant/lnsurance Company would submit: the iearned Tribunal has erred in directing the appeliant to pay first amount of compensation to the claimant and then recover it from the owner ofthe vehicle. 5. On the other hand, Shri Amiakant Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the ciaimant/respondent No.1 supported the award and submitted that in the facts & cjrcumstances of the case, the iearned Tribunal has rightly directed the appellant/lnsurance Company to pay fjrst amount of compensation to the claimant and then recover it from the owner ofthe vehicie. •'.tt 6. Per contra, Shri Suresh Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3/owner submitted that the learned Tribunaj has wrongly exonerated the appellant/lnsurance Company from its liabiiity to pay compensation. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material avaiiable on record including impugned award. 8. Indisputably, the driver of offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident inasmuch as the vehlcle was transport vehicle whereas the licence of the driver was valid only to drive Light Motor Vehicle, therefore, learned Tribunal placing reliance ofjudgment of the Supreme Court in case of Orientai Insurance Company IM. -v--Angad Kol andOrs,repQrted in p009 (11) SCC 356 has rightly axonerated the Insurance Company from ite iiability to pay compensation. Further placing retiance of the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and others, reported in (2@04) 3 SCC 297 has rightiy directed the appellant to pay first amount of compensation to the claimant and then recover it from tbe owner ofthe vehicle. (^ 9. Three Judges bench of Supreme Court in case of Swaran Singh (Supra) has held in para 110 (x) as under : "(x) Where 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 compejled to pay to the third party under the award of the Tribunal. Such determination of claim by the Tribuna! wilt 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 tand 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 ofthe award bythe Tribunal." 10. In view of above, the Tribunal has not committed any error in directing the appellant/lnsurance Company to pay first amount of compensation to the ciaimant and .then recover it from the owner of thevehide. 11. No other points have been raised. 12. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the appea! being without substance js liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 13. No order as to costs. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge