ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. LEELAWATI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 19.5.2008/15.12.2008 passed by Sri Ashok Kumar Pathak, the Additional District Judge-VI, Patna-cum-Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Patna in Claim Case No. 41 of 2005 (Lilawati Devi and Others v. Binod Rai and Others) whereby the learned Tribunal while allowing the claim has granted liberty to the appellant for recovery of the said amount from the owner of the offending vehicle. Facts of the case leading to the claim application in brief is that the deceased alongwith some other persons were going from Danapur towards Bihta by Tata Spacio passenger Jeep bearing Registration No. BR-1P-9531 which met with an accident allegedly on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle and which resulted into the death of Sheo Prasad Singh @ Sheoji Singh, the husband/father of the claimants. Whereas the claimant No. 1, Lilawati Devi is the widow of the deceased, the other claimants are his children. Upon service of notice the Insurance Company appeared and contested the matter. The Driver and the owner of the offending vehicle did not choose to appear and contest the proceeding and thus the claim case was heard ex parte as against them. The learned Tribunal upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence led by the parties upheld the claim of the claimants for compensation but while doing so it also opined that the deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger and that the vehicle was not having a valid permit to ply on the road and thus the Oriental Insurance Companies was not liable to indemnify the owner and pay the compensation. However, since the vehicle was insured with the appellant Insurance Company hence the learned Tribunal while directing the Insurance Company, who is the appellant before this Court to make payment of the compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% to be calculated from the date of filing of the claim case until its actual payment, further granted liberty to the Insurance Company to recover the said amount from the owner of the offending vehicle.

(2.) I have heard Mr. Durgesh Kumar Singh learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company, Mr. Rajesh Kumar appearing for the claimant-respondent Nos. 1 to 2 and Mr. Arbind Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the owner-respondent No. 6.

(3.) Mr. Durgesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has made a very short submission to question the award. He has submitted that even while the Tribunal has held the deceased to be a gratuitous passenger and taken note of the fact that the vehicle was not having a valid permit to ply on the road for commercial purposes rather the vehicle was registered as a private vehicle and thus even while holding that the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the compensation and the liability fell on the owner i.e. respondent No. 6 herein, yet has directed the Insurance Company to make payment of the compensation amount alongwith interest and recover the same from the owner. It is the contention of Mr. Singh that in view of the categorical finding of the Tribunal that the liability fell on the owner, there was no occasion for the Tribunal to direct the Insurance Company to make payment of the amount and to recover the same from the owner.