RATI RAM Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An amount of Rs. 72,500 was awarded to the petitioner by way of compensation on account of accidental death met by the mother of the petitioner, Anandi Devi. While the matter was pending before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dholpur, Lok Adalat was held wherein a compromise was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent No. 1, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and also against another insurance company, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (who is not the party herein as it has already paid the amount to the petitioner in execution of the compromise recorded in the Lok Adalat). The respondent No. 1, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. however refused to honour the compromise recorded at the Lok Adalat on the ground that the said compromise was conditional as it was subject to verification of the documents. Challenging the compromise, it was further contended that the driving licence of the driver of the vehicle which caused accident was not valid and hence the insurance company is not liable to pay the amount to the claimant as the driver of the vehicle was not holding a valid licence. This plea of the insurance company was entertained by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dholpur and hence the compromise was set aside by the Tribunal.

(2.) The claimant-petitioner feeling aggrieved with the same, has filed this writ petition.

(3.) The counsel for the parties have been heard in the matter from where it is clearly gathered that although the compromise before the Lok Adalat was based on the condition that the amount would be paid by the insurance company after verification of the documents, the said condition obviously was not applicable to the claimant as this objection by the respondent insurance company could be raised against the owner of vehicle who had insured his vehicle with the insurance company. The dispute, therefore, regarding the validity of the driving licence is between the owner of the vehicle and the respondent insurance company. Insofar as the claimant-petitioner is concerned, there is no dispute that he is the claimant or that he is not liable to receive the amount and hence insofar as his part is concerned, there is no infirmity in the document produced by the petitioner in regard to his eligibility to receive the amount so as to give rise to a plank for the respondent insurance company not to honour the compromise against claimant-petitioner. The dispute regarding validity of the licence is an inter se dispute between the owner of the vehicle and the respondent insurance company which the insurance company is entitled to contest before the appropriate forum, but on this account the insurance company cannot be absolved of the liability to execute and honour the compromise which it had entered with the petitioner. The claimant-petitioner could not have been expected to prove the validity of the licence of the driver as it is for the owner to prove or disprove it.