JANKI Vs. AFRAZ KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the aforesaid appeals arise out of an order exonerating the Insurance Company from paying interim compensation under no fault liability and the owner of the offending vehicle alone has been held liable to pay the compensation by the impugned orders which are under challenge in these appeals, praying for saddling the liability on the Insurance Company.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for respondent No. 3-Insurance Company submitted that they did not oppose the prayer of the claimants before the Tribunal, but the Tribunal applying its own mind, relying upon the decision passed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 11989-11994 of 98, decided on 22nd July, 1998, in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jothu Ram and Ors. has held that the Insurance Company is not liable. Counsel representing the respondent No. 3-Insurance Company stated that there is no dispute regarding insurance of the offending vehicle and the Company has admitted that. Copy of the aforesaid decision of the pex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd.'s case (supra), has been placed on the record of Misc. Appeal No. 180/99. It appears that the Claims Tribunal has misread and misinterpreted the judgment of the Apex Court. The Apex Court after appreciating the contentions and the provisions of Sections 92-A and 92-B of the Act, in the aforesaid case, held that:

(3.) IN this case, it is not in dispute that the vehicle is insured by the Insurance Company and where the vehicle is insured the insurer cannot be exonerated from liability to pay compensation. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3-Insurance Company fairly submitted before this Court that they have not opposed the prayer of the claimants yet the Tribunal on its own reading the judgment of the Apex Court, referred to above, passed the impugned order. In the opinion of this Court, the Claims Tribunal totally misread the judgment. The Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. v. Jothu Ram (supra), held that if under the policy of the insurance, the insurer has no liability to pay the compensation, the insurer cannot be held liable to pay. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company yet the Insurance Company has been exonerated under misconception of law.