1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.857 OF 1997 Jaypal T. Chougule Appellant versus Tai B. Jadhav and others Respondents Mr.T.S.Ingle for appellant. Mr.U.R.Mankapure for respondents 1 to 3. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 15th April 2010 JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for first to third respondents. Respondent nos.4 to 7 are duly served. 2. The challenge in this appeal is to judgment and award passed by the learned Member of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in a claim petition filed by the first to third respondents. The appellant is the second opponent in the claim petition who was the owner of the offending vehicle. An award was made on 20th April 1996 by the Tribunal which has been impugned in the First Appeal. The appellant along with first opponent were jointly and severally directed to pay the compensation to the claimants. However, the claim petition as against the seventh respondent (the insurer of the offending vehicle) has been dismissed on the ground 2 that there was a breach of the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. 3. The learned counsel for the parties has invited my attention to the judgment and order dated 8th February 2005 passed by this Court by which First Appeal No.568 of 1997 and three connected appeals were finally decided by this Court. The said appeals were preferred by the present Appellant for challenging the awards made in favour of other claimants. The said claims were arising out of the same accident with which this Court is concerned in the present appeal. This court, while allowing the appeal preferred by the appellant, held that there was no breach of terms and conditions of the policy on the part of the appellant. Therefore, this Court allowed the appeals and held the seventh respondent insurer as liable to pay the compensation. The learned counsel for the appellant as well as respondents 1 to 3 state that to their knowledge, the judgment and order dated 8th February 2005 passed by this Court was not challenged by the insurance company and in fact the amount of compensation was paid by the insurance company. In any event, the present appeal will be governed by the said judgment and order. 4. This court has already held that the insurer of the vehicle has failed to prove that the appellant has committed the breach of the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. Therefore, the impugned judgment and award in this appeal to the extent to which seventh respondent 3 insurance company has been exonerated, will have to be quashed and set aside. 5. Hence, the first appeal is disposed of by passing following order :- A) The impugned judgment and award is modified; B) There shall be an award against the original opponent nos.1, 2 and 5 directing them to pay the compensation as awarded under the impugned judgment and award. The opponent nos.1, 2 and 5 shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation as per the impugned award; C) The seventh respondent (original opponent no.5) is granted time of three months to deposit the compensation amount as per the modified award; D) The first appeal is partly allowed in above terms with no order as to costs. (A.S.OKA, J.)