LAWS(RAJ)-2003-9-4

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. MADHO SINGH

Decided On September 24, 2003
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LIMITED Appellant
V/S
MADHO SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the Insurer against the judgment and award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Abu Road dt. 19-9-2000 decreeing the claimants' claim for a sum of Rupees 3,50,000/- along with interest @ 12% from the date of claim petition, and holding the appellant liable for the entire amount.

(2.) Contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, mainly is, that the delinquent vehicle, tempo was being driven by respondent No. 2 who is the husband of the owner respondent No. 1, and was not holding any valid driving license, and therefore, there being breach of specified conditions of the policy, and this being one of the defences available to the appellant under Section 149(2), the learned Tribunal has erred in holding the appellant liable. Some other contentions have also been raised, regarding the rate of interest, and the period for which the appellant could be held liable for the interest.

(3.) The appeal came up before the Court on 15-1-2002, on which date notice to show cause was ordered to be issued. After service, the matter came up on 19-7-2002, on which date record was ordered to be requisitioned. Thereafter, the matter came up before me on 21-3-2003, on which date I heard the matter, and the main objection that was raised on the side of the claimant respondent was, that in view of the provisions of Section 149(4), specially its proviso, and sub-section (5) of Section 149, even if it is assumed that the driver was not holding any valid license, still, in view of the various judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, including those in British India General Insurance Co. v. Itbar, reported in AIR 1959 SC 1331, New Asiatic Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pessumal Dhanamal, reported in AIR 1964 SC 1736, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamla, reported in (2001) 4 JT (SC) 235, it is always open to the Insurer to recover back the amount from the owner insured, and, therefore, the Insurer should make payment of the amount of compensation to the claimant, and, in turn, therefore, no interference is required to be made in this appeal.