NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. NAMDEO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, at the instance of original respondent no.2 arises out of judgment and award dtd. 9/5/2014 passed by learned M.A.C.T. Beed, in M.A.C.P. No. 147 of 2005 awarding maintenance to the original claimants/respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein, on account of accidental death of Balu Namdeo Kale, who died in road traffic accident dtd. 3/1/2005.

(2.) In nutshell, present respondent nos.1 to 5, who are original claimants, instituted above M.A.C.P., on the premise that, deceased Balu, who was a labourer engaged in sugarcane cutting, was traveling in a truck bearing No. MH-15-G-2827, which was meant for transporting sugarcane labourers on behalf of sugar factory. On the said day, driver of the vehicle i.e. respondent no.1 was driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner, as a result of which, the vehicle turned turtle causing fatal injuries to the deceased, due to which, he died. Therefore, invoking Sec. 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, heirs of deceased Balu set up accident claim for compensation, which was contested by present appellant i.e. original respondent no.2. Ultimately, learned tribunal allowed the claim petition directing compensation to the tune of Rs.4,00,000.00 to be paid by original respondent no.1 with interest. However, there were further directions by order dtd. 9/5/2014 that, present appellant (original respondent no.2 insurance company) to satisfy the award and then recover it from respondent no.1.

(3.) Heard. Learned counsel for insurance company Shri Deshmukh would raise fundamental objection to the grant of compensation. According to him, the vehicle being goods vehicle, deceased being gratuitous passenger, he was not entitled to travel therein and no extra premium being paid, the insurance company was not liable. It is his submission that, when learned tribunal had clearly recorded a finding that insurance company succeeded in proving that there was breach of policy and not liable to pay, learned tribunal ought not to have even directed insurance company to first pay and then recover later. It is also his submission that, though precedents laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court are regarding pay and recover, it is his specific submission that, this has been done by the Hon'ble Apex court in exercise of Article 142 of the Constitution of India, and therefore, it is not open for this court to direct pay and recover.