KURUVILLA Vs. JIJO JOSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These unnumbered appeals arise from the awards passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals allowing the insurance company to recover the amount from the appellants on payment of the same to the claimants for (alleged) violation of policy conditions. The Registry has raised objection that the appellants should comply with the first proviso to S. 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (for short, "the Act") since they are aggrieved by the awards and are challenging the same.

(2.) According to the learned counsel the direction issued by the Tribunal for payment of the amount is to the insurance company though it is given a right of recovery of the amount from the appellants. The learned counsel submits that though in Sridharan v. Prasad, 2011 3 KerLT 19 the Division Bench has taken the view that even when the direction is to the insurance company to pay the amount (with a right of recovery of the amount from the insured) the appellant should comply with the first proviso to S. 173(1) of the Act, the question has been referred to a Larger Bench for a decision as per a later decision of the Division Bench dated 03.08.2011 in M.A.C.A. No. 168 of 2006. The learned counsel also argue that for the said reason and since the decision in Trolochan Singh v. Kanta Devi, 2000 9 SCC 222 is not properly considered by the Division Bench in Sridharan v. Prasad , until the reference is answered the appellants are not liable to comply with the first proviso to S. 173(1) of the Act.

(3.) I am unable to accept the said contention of the learned counsel. The Division Bench in Sridharan v. Prasad has referred to and considered the decision in Trolochan Singh v. Kanta Devi to hold that the decision in Abdul Rahiman v. Rajan, 2004 2 KerLT 1113 does not lay down the correct law. The decision in Sridharan v. Prasad has to be followed until it is overruled by a Larger Bench or by the Supreme Court.