NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. PRABHA JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE insurer, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. calls in question the propriety of the award dated 30. 9. 1994 passed in Claim Case No. 18 of 1993 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chhindwara.

(2.) THE facts as have been unfolded from the materials on record are that the respondents as claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') forming the subject matter of claim case No. 18 of 1993 claiming compensation for the death of Dr. Santosh Jain. It was put forth in the application that the deceased was himself driving his Fiat car bearing registration No. MP-02-4444 on 7. 6. 93 from Narsinghpur to Chhindwara. The vehicle dashed against a tree and as a consequence thereof said Dr. Santosh Jain was injured and ultimately met his end. Along with the application preferred under Section 166 of the Act, an application under Section 140 of the Act was submitted claiming compensation under the said provision. The said application was resisted by the insurance company specifically advancing a plea that it had not insured any occupant of the said car and the deceased was himself the owner and was driving the vehicle in question and, therefore, no liability could be fastened on the insurer in absence of any special contract to that effect. Without scrutinising the legal liability of the insurer the Tribunal allowed the application preferred under Section 140 of the Act directing the insurance company to pay an amount of Rs. 25,000 to the claimants. The said interim award was challenged before the Court in M. A. No. 830 of 1994. While the said appeal was pending for adjudication before this Court, the Tribunal took up the matter instituted under Section 166 of the Act and came to hold that the claimants were not entitled to any compensation and accordingly rejected their application. However, while dismissing the main application the Tribunal held that the submission of the insurance company that in view of the dismissal of the application under Section 166 of the Act, it was entitled to recover the awarded amount under Section 140 of the Act was not tenable in law. The affirmation of the interim award passed under Section 140 of the Act is the cause of grievance of the present appellant.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Ruprah, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Diwakar for the claimants/respondents. On a perusal of the record it is clear as day that objections raised at the time of passing of the award under Section 140 of the Act were not considered and, therefore, the same was called in question in this Court in M. A. No. 830 of 1994. As in the meantime the main award was passed the appeal preferred before this Court was rendered infructuous. This fact is apparent from the order dated 23. 2. 97 passed in this appeal. It is distinctly perceptible that while disposing of the main application the Tribunal has exonerated the insurance company from the liability. The question that falls for consideration is whether exoneration at the stage of final adjudication would entitle the insurance company to recover the amount paid while complying with the award passed under Section 140 of the Act.