KESHAV KAPIL Vs. SANTOSH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-II, Hamirpur, H.P., had, vis-a-vis the injured-claimant Santosh Kumar, hence, computed compensation, borne in a sum of Rs. 2,82,391.00, along with interest, at, the rate of 7.5% per annum, from, the date of institution of petition, till its final realization. The indemnificatory liability thereof, was, burdened jointly and severally, upon, the owner and driver, of, the offending vehicle. The owner, and, the driver of the offending vehicle, are, aggrieved by the award pronounced by the learned Tribunal in MAC Petition No. 17/13 RBT No.10/13, 55/14, hence, they respectively institute, the aforesaid appeals, before this Court.

(2.) The learned counsel(s) appearing, for the appellants, where on whom, the apt indemnificatory liability stands fastened, contend with much vigour, (i) that the fastening of the apt indemnificatory liability being stained with a gross vice, of, fallibility, and, further rest their submission(s), upon, (ii) with the Honourable Apex Court, in, a case titled as Deddappa and Ors. Vs. The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2007 AIR SCW 7948, the relevant paragraph No. 26 whereof, stands extracted hereinafter:-

(3.) Be that as it may, the apt indemnificatory liability of the insurer qua the offending vehicle, rather would remain intact, and, would not be axed, merely upon apt cogent evidence remaining unadduced by it, vis-a-vis, purveying, of, intimation, to the insured, vis-avis, the dishonour, of, premium cheque, (i) upon evidence surging forth, vis-a-vis, the memo, of, dishonour, as issued by the bank, whereat the insured maintained his accounts, rather standing falsified by fortified and formidable evidence. Ex.RW2/A is proven by RW-2. RW-2 is the official of the bank concerned, whereat the insured maintain(s) his account(s), for, ensuring the realization(s) therefrom the amount borne in cheque Ex.RW2/A. Ex.RW2/B was prepared, on 19.07.2011, and, in case, it, purportedly stands ingrained with false recitals, thereupon, the apposite statement of accounts, as, embodied, in mark R-1, (ii) hence was enjoined to make a candid display, that, on 19.07.2011, funds sufficient for honouring Ex.RW2/A, rather occurred therein. However, a perusal of Ex. R-1, makes a disclosure that on 19.07.2011, funds rather not being available therein, for, ensuring, hence, realization therefrom, of, the amount, embodied in Ex. RW2/A, (iii) thereupon, for the afore assigned reasons, it is to be rather concluded, that dehors, any apt intimation being purveyed by the insurer to the insured, vis-a-vis, the dishonouring, of, premium cheque, yet want thereof, rather not coaxing any conclusion from this Court, that the indemnificatory liability, vis-a-vis, the compensation amount hence being fastenable upon the insurer, (iv) importantly when apt wants ,of, liquidation, by the insurer, of, consideration, vis-a-vis, the contract, of, insurance, qua, the insured, it begets, an apt nullifcatory effect.