UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. SONIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both appeals, one by Insurance Company No. 1679/2019, and another by claimants No. 3496/2019, have been filed against the judgment and award dtd. 1/3/2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Alwar (hereafter 'the Tribunal'), therefore, are being decided by this common judgment.

(2.) On filing claim petition under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereafter 'the Act of 1988') the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.47,99,536.00 with interest in favour of the claimants and while exonerating the Insurance Company from liability, following the principle of "pay and recover" it was directed that the Insurance Company first will pay the compensation to claimants and then may recover the same from owner and driver of the vehicle in question. The claim petition was filed in relation to an accident occurred on 3/7/2015 when vehicle in question bearing registration No. HR-74A-3768 was overturned and in that accident, one Mr. Vinit Moyal died. The vehicle in question was in the ownership of respondent Ashraf and was being driven by respondent Mustkim. The vehicle in question was insured with the United India Insurance Company. The Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that there is breach of conditions of insurance policy as the driver was not having a valid and effective licence and that the vehicle was not having a route permit and fitness certificate on the date of accident; therefore, the Insurance Company was absolved from the liability to indemnify the insured (owner of the vehicle), however, under the principle of "pay and recover" the Insurance Company was directed to pay the compensation to claimants and then to recover the same from the owner and driver of the vehicle.

(3.) In Appeal (1679/2019) filed by Insurance Company, it has been argued that when the Tribunal itself has held that there is breach of insurance policy then the claim petition ought to have been dismissed against the Insurance Company as a whole and the Tribunal committed an error of law in directing the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount to claimants and then to recover from the owner of the vehicle. Counsel for the Insurance Company has raised three points (i) the driver of vehicle was not having a valid and effective licence on the date of accident, (ii) vehicle in question was not having a route permit and fitness certificate on the date of accident, and (iii) the Tribunal has assessed the quantum of compensation on higher side and prayed that impugned judgment be modified suitably.