PAVITRABAI Vs. SHANKAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE decision rendered in M.A. No. 1132/2001 shall also govern the disposal of other three connected appeals being M.A. No. 1079/2001, M.A. No. 1077/2001 and M.A. No. 1080/2001 because all these appeals arise out of one accident and common award. We do not wish to burden our order by narrating the facts in detail as in all these appeals only two questions are involved. Firstly whether the Insurance Company was rightly exonerated from the liability arising out of accident in question and secondly any case for further enhancement in the compensation than what has been awarded by the Tribunal in each of the cases, is made out and if so to what extent?

(2.) SO far as the issue in regard to liability of Insurance Company is concerned, though we are inclined to uphold that finding but keeping in view the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in a case reported in 2004 (1) JLJ 110 = 2004 ACJ 297 (Jugal Kishore and others v. Ramlesh Devi and others), we grant liberty/right in favour of the Insurance Company to recover the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in favour of the claimants from the insured i.e. owner of insured vehicle involved in accident in the same proceedings as was observed by the Full Bench in paragraph 22 of the said decision. These observations are based upon the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases mentioned in para 22 itself and, therefore, we are of the opinion that such a right/liberty can always be granted in favour of the Insurance Company for making recovery of the aw aided sum from the insured on proving the breach of policy qua them.

(3.) THIS takes us to other other appeal being M.A. No. 1079/2001. In this case one Gopalsingh aged 50 years died leaving behind his LRs. who filed the claim petition. After taking into account all facts and circumstances of the case, his income, dependency and applying the multiplier, the Tribunal was pleased to award a total sum of Rs. 3,19,000/-. Although, learned counsel for appellant has made attempt to contend that a case for enhancement is made out in the compensation already awarded by the Tribunal. We are, however, satisfied that the compensation so awarded by the Tribunal appears to be reasonable, proper and adequate, calling no enhancement in the same. Accordingly and in view of the aforesaid discussion, this appeal (M.A. No. 1079/2001) fails in so far as it relates to the prayer made for enhancement in compensation is concerned. So far as the right to recovery against the Insurance Co., is concerned, it is already granted in favour of the appellants supra and, therefore, no more discussion in that regard is called for.