^ Sinaie Bench : Hon'bie Shri Diiio Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. 1. 2. 3. Branch Manager, Bajaj Allia.nz Genera! Insurance Company Limited, Shiv Mohan Bhawan, Vidhan Sabha Road, Paridri, Raipur (C.G.) Hardeep Kaur, W/o Shri Jaswant Sinflh, aged about 55 yeare, R/o Shiv Niwas, Santrabadi, P.S. Mohan Nagar, Tahsil and Distnct Durg (C.G.) Banjare, aged about 23 years, S/o Ramcharan Banjare, R/o Village Sawatpur, Post Sargaon, P.S. Him, District Biiaspur (C.G.) (DR1VER) Ramcharan Banjare, agai about 55 years, S/o Bisauha Ram Banjars, R/o Viiiage Sawatpur, Post Sargaon, P.S. Hirri, DistrictBilaspur(C.G.) (OWNER) Section 173 oithe MotorVehicles Act as amended bv Act of 1994. Presen't : - Shri ShashankThakur, counsel forthe appellant itid (Passed on thls 2"°day of December, 2008) Heard on admission. (2) The appetlant/insurer is aggrieved by the award dated 29-08-2008 passed by the 7 Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunaf (F.T.C.), Durg (henceforth "the Tribunai") in Claim Case No.26 of 2007 whereby the Tribuna! has while recording a finding of breaoh of esserrtial condition of the policy ordered insurer first to pay the total amount of compensation awarded by it and glven it the right to recover ttie same from the ownerpfthe vehiole. (3) !t is not in dispute that the Hardeep Kaur who was injured in the accident was a third party and the insurer was statutoriiy liabie to cover the risk of the injured. in this view of the matter, the decision rendered by this Court in United India insurance Company Limited through its Branch Manager Vs. Kunjbihari fc'ishra and Others on 26th February, 2008 in M.A.(C.)No.44 of2(X!7 applies with full force to the present case. In para 16 of the above decision, th.js Court has observed as unden- .-"S^;EZS:'te-.. ^-~"_A'"^ 8 @~.» ff 1 I. "'•wt^ 1 \%^Jy/ %:fy "L-- "Admittediy', respondent No.l/claimant, a pedestrian, who was knocked down by the offending vehicle driven. by respondent No.2 is a third party, whose risk was statutoriiy covered by the insurer under the policy of insurance. In view ofthe decision rendered by the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co., Shimia vs. Kamia and Others (supra), Nationai Insurance Co. Ud. vs. Swaran Singh and othsrs (supra), Nationa! insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Laxmi Narain Dhut (supra) and a Division Benoh of this Court in Smt Pustipabai and others vs. PadurnnaUi Maii and Others (supra) and also in view of the fact that the owner and driver of the offendina vehiole yv'ere not contestinfl the appiication for compensation and had remained ex parte, the Tribunai had jurisdiotion and was justified in oraering the insurance company to pay the compensation awarded and reoover it from the owner. Even in Sardari and others vs. Sushii Kumar and others (supra), the Supreme Court has in paragraph 6 obseri/ed that in certain fact situations, the Couri: while fastening the liability on the owner of the vehicte may direct the Insurance Company to pay to the ciaimants the a'ward amount with liberty to it to reoover the same from the owner. There is, thus, no i'legaiity in the impugned award. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Since the injured person in this accident was a third party and the insurer was statutorily Isable to cover the risk of the injured. The Tribuna!, in the facts and oiroumstanoes of the case, was thus justified in passing an ora'er of pay and recover against the insurer. (4) There is no merit in this appeal whioh is accordingiy dismissed at the stageof admission. ——————— Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge