RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. OM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave Granted.

(2.) The appellant-insurer is aggrieved by the fastening of liability upon it by the High Court in terms of the impugned judgment dtd. 14/9/2022 passed in FAO No.1049 of 2016 and FAO No.8517 of 2015 by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh, reversing the finding of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Panipat [ MACT Case No. 116 of 2012 / Tribunal] though granting compensation to the claimants but directing the respondents nos. 1 and 2, namely, Om Prakash (driver of the offending vehicle) and Rajinder Singh (owner of the offending vehicle), to pay the amount as awarded. The Tribunal held the appellant-insurer not liable to pay the same.

(3.) The accident in question took place on 14/10/2009 when the offending vehicle hit the two-wheeler being driven by the claimant. The aspect of rash and negligent driving is not in dispute. The reason why the Tribunal held only respondents 1 and 2, and not respondent no.3 before it to be liable is that at the time of the accident the driver did not possess a valid license. The total amount quantified as compensation, payable to the claimants, is Rs.86,95,947.00 along with 7.5% interest. There was a further stipulation that if the amount was not paid within two months, interest would be at the rate of 9% thereafter. On appeals filed by the claimant, driver, and the owner, the High Court took a different view and held that the driver did indeed have a valid license and, as such, the appellantinsurer herein would be liable to pay compensation. The total amount in the High Court 's computation was Rs.1,08,08,909.00 with 8% interest.