HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD L.P.A.No.106 of 2002 JUDGMENT (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Durga Prasad): This appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dated 12-04-2001 in A.A.O.No.1353 of 1995. The said appeal was arisen out of the award passed by the I Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal, Guntur (for brevity ‘the Tribunal’), in M.V.O.P.No.362 of 1990, dated 31-03-1994. The Tribunal, by taking into consideration of the evidence, awarded the compensation of Rs.80,000/- to the claimants directing the insurance company to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- out of total compensation and also directing the owner of the vehicle to pay the remaining compensation. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants filed A.A.O.No.1353 of 1995 challenging the fixation of smaller amount as liability on the insurance company. The learned Single Judge following the decision reported in New India Assurance Company Vs. Satpal Singh[1] allowed the appeal holding that the insurance company is also liable to pay the compensation along with the owner of the vehicle jointly and severally. Aggrieved by the same, the insurance company filed this appeal. Now the point for consideration is as to whether the insurance company is severally and jointly liable with the owner for payment of the compensation? The learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company has pleaded that the decision reported in Satpal Singh’s case (cited 1 supra) was overruled in subsequent decision rendered in New India Assurance Co. Ltd., v. Asha Rani[2] and further pleaded that in National Insurance Company Limited v. Baljit Kaur and others[3], the Apex Court held as follows: “The Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation at the first instance to the claimant and then recover the same from the owner.” In the above said decision referred to by the appellant (cited 3 supra), the Supreme Court held that the Tribunal and also the High Court proceeded in terms of the decision of this Court rendered in Satpal Singh’s case (cited 1 supra) and subsequently the said decision was overruled by the decision reported in Asha Rani’s case (cited 2 supra). Therefore, while allowing the insurer’s appeal, in the interest of justice, the insurer is directed to satisfy the awarded amount and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle simply by initiating a proceeding before the executing court without filing 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 Accidents Claims Tribunal and the issue was decided against the owner and in favour of the insurer. Therefore, in view of the above said decision, the Insurance company is liable to pay the amount to the claimants in the interest of justice and then recover the same from the owner. Therefore, the appellant herein is liable to pay the compensation to the claimants first and then proceed with against the owner for recovery of the said amount. The joint and several liability of the insurer along with owner is absolved Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated above. The insurance company has to pay the compensation to the claimants and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle by filing an execution petition without filing a separate suit. _______________________ JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO Date: 31st January 2011 _________________________ JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD kvr [1] 2000 (1) S.C.C. 227 [2] (2003) 2 SCC 223: 2003 SCC (Cri) 493 [3] (2004) 2 Supreme Court Cases