RAHUL SOOD Vs. BIMLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Fao No. 352 of 2017, and, FAO No. 419 of 2017, are respectively, reared by the registered owner, of, the offending vehicle, and, by the insurer of the offending vehicle, against, the award rendered by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Sirmaur at Nahan, H.P., upon, MACP No. 189-N/2 of 2013, (i) wherethrough, compensation amount, borne in a sum of Rs.13,63, 296/-, stood assessed, vis-a-vis, the claimants, and, thereon interest, at, the rate of 7.5% per annum also stood levied, and, it was ordered to commence, from, the date of petition till realization, of, the compensation amount.

(2.) Succinctly, the submission, of, the learned counsel appearing, for, the aggrieved insurer, of, the offending vehicle, whereuponwhom, the apposite indemnificatory liability, stood fastened, (i) is comprised, in, the, legality, of, adoptions, by the learned tribunal, of, the principle of "pay, and, recover", wherethrough, the, initial disbursing liability, vis-a-vis, the determined compensation amount, was saddled, upon, the insurer, and, thereafter a right was reserved, to it, to, upon, its deposit, and, release(s), vis-a-vis, the claimants concerned, hence seek recovery(ies) thereof, in accordance with law, hence, from the owner, and, driver of the offending vehicle, (ii) and, is, grooved, in the contract of insurance, executed inter se the insurer, and, insured, and, borne in Ex. RW1/A, being, a, "liability only polcy, hence covering, risk, of, driver only, and, its not covering the risk, of, the occupants, of, the offending car, and, when at the relevant time, the deceased hece was travelling, as, a gratuitous passenger, in, the offending vehicle, evidently registered, as, a non passenger vehicle, (iii) rather, upon demise, of, the afore evident gratuitous passenger, hence, travelling, in, the afore category of vehicle, would not, enable the burdening, of, the apposite indementificatory liability, on any front, visa-vis, the insurer. The learned counsel appearing for the insurer, has further contended, (iv) that, since the deceased, though, was an occupant of the offending vehicle, and, was not, a third party, and, upon, the afore prime factum, being, coagulated, with, the, other evident fact, that, with the apt policy, standing, evidently, executed inter se the insurer, and, the insured, and, as borne in Ex. RW1/A, rather covering the apt risk(s) of, the, driver-cum-owner, and, its not covering, the, risk of any gratuitous passenger(s) hence carried therein, (v) thereupon, in consonance with the verdict, pronounced by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in case titled asNational Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Balakrishnan, and, another, 2013 ACJ 199, the relevant paragraph No. 21 whereof stands extracted hereinafter:-

(3.) The afore submission has immense vigour, and, hence, is accepted, and, in view of the afore, the insurer is completely, and, explicitly, exculpated, vis-avis, the fastening, of, the, apposite indemnificatory liability, and, also the principle, of, "pay and recover", is not recourseable nor this Court upholds, the, operative portion of the verdict, recorded by the learned tribunal, wherein, the insurer, is, initially saddled, with, the apposite indemnificatory liability, and, thereafter a right has been preserved, vis-a-vis, it, to, upon its apt release, it, through recoursing apt legal mechanisms, ensure, its being recovered from the registered owner, of, the offending vehicle.