THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE Vs. SUBHASH CHANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988( the Act of 1988? in short) against the award dated 04-01-2010 given by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal(MACT? in short) whereby the compensation found to be payable to the claimants, respondents 1-4 herein, was directed to be paid to them by the appellant herein being the insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident, which was a three wheeler(hereinafter referred to as the insured vehicle?) owned by respondent no.6 herein and driven by respondent no.5 herein at the time of the accident and who has been found guilty of causing the death of one Raju due to rash and negligent driving of the three wheeler, but no right to recover the awarded compensation from respondent no.6 has been given to the appellant-insurer. The appellant-insurer has felt aggrieved by the denial of right to recover the compensation from the insured, respondent no.6 and hence this appeal came to be filed.

(2.) A claim petition under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 for getting compensation was filed by the respondents 1-4 herein, being the legal heirs of the deceased Raju.

(3.) THE learned MACT while holding the driver of the three wheeler guilty of causing the accident and the death of the deceased Raju by his rash and negligent driving awarded compensation of Rs.9,24,880/- to the claimants, respondents no.1-4 herein. Regarding the apportionment of liability amongst the appellant, owner of the insured vehicle and its driver the MACT observed as under in the impugned award:- 16. THE Insurance Company had taken the plea that the Driver of the offending vehicle was having a fake driving licence. It has led evidence of R3W2 Sh. Gulab Singh, who was the Record Clerk Licencing Authority Hissar, Haryana wherein he proved the fact that the driving licence bearing No. 39476 was issued in the name of one Mr. Hira Lal S/o Sh. Raghunath and not in the name of Dharmender.THE Insurance Company have also produced its own officer R3W1 Sh. Vikram Singh, Administrative Officer wherein the proved that the policy conditions have been violated. However, the respondent No. 2 who is the owner of the offending vehicle also led his own evidence and stated that at the time of appointment of the Driver/Respondent No. 1, he had taken his driving test personally and found him fit to drive the offending vehicle and the driving licence was duly checked-up by the owner which he found to be genuine one. Though the Insurance Company have been able to prove that the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle was fake one but the owner had also duly checked-up the driving licence of the driver and had also taken his driving test personally. THErefore, in terms of the judgment of Honble Supreme Court of India titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rula and Ors., date of judgment 07.03.2000. Hence, Insurance Company is not entitled to recovery certificate.