MD YUSUF ANSARI Vs. SIRAJ KHATUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals (MA No. 238 of 2010 on behalf of the owner of the vehicle and MA No. 239 of 2010 on behalf of the insurance company) have been preferred against the judgment and award dated 12.8.2010 passed by the 1st Addl. District Judge cum Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Giridih, in connection with Title (MV) Suit (Claim Case) No. 52 of 2003 whereby the claimants have been directed to be paid compensation to the extent of Rs. 7,30,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the impugned judgment and award. The tribunal has directed the insurance company (in MA No. 239 of 2010) to pay the compensation amount and the said amount may be recovered by the insurer from the owner of the vehicle, who is the appellant in MA 238 of 2010). Brief facts of the case behind institution of the claim case is that the deceased Gulab Husain was travelling from Kodambari to Giridih on the trekker bearing registration No. BR 23A 0652 which met with accident due to rash and negligent driving near Paharpur, Giridih. In the said accident, Gulab Hussain sustained injuries and died at the spot. The claimants who are legal heirs and representatives of the deceased filed an application for payment of compensation vide Title (MV) Suit (Claim Case) No. 52 of 2003 The appellants appeared before the tribunal and filed their respective show cause and raised objection against grant of payment of compensation.

(2.) Md. Yusuf Ansari (appellant in MA no. 238 of 2010) who happens to be the owner of the said offending vehicle has submitted that the vehicle was duly insured and the driver was having valid licence and therefore the tribunal has erred by giving recovery right to the insurer. The aforesaid part of the impugned judgment has been challenged by which recovery right has been given to the insurance company.

(3.) The insurance company, appellant in MA No. 239 of 2010 has submitted that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid licence at the time of accident and that has been elaborately discussed in para 14 to 16 of the impugned judgment. Further more, no valid permit was produced by the owner of the vehicle; rather photo copy was filed. The certificate of fitness of the vehicle was also filed. The certificate of fitness which was produced was having manipulation and over writing(s). It is contended that the owner of the offending vehicle has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and therefore the owner of the offending vehicle should have been held absolutely liable to pay the compensation amount, but the tribunal has directed the insurance company to pay compensation amount and further directed to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle through process of the court. This part of the finding of the tribunal is erroneous and is liable to be set aside and the owner of the vehicle may be directed to satisfy the award.