Bombay High Court
New India Assu. Co Ltd. Thru Its ... vs Sakhubai Namdeo Ramteke & 3 Ors on 23 May, 2017
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
fa1132.07.J.odt 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO.1132 OF 2007
New India Assurance Company Ltd.,
a Registered and Head Office New India
Assurance Building, 87, M.G. Road, fort,
Mumbai - 1, through its Regional Manager,
Regional Office Dr. Ambedkar Bhawan,
MECL Premises, 4th Floor, High Land Drive,
Seminary Hills, Nagpur-6. ....... APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
1] Sau. Sakhubai Namdeo Ramteke,
Aged about 63 years, Occ: Labour.
2] Ku. Dipali Vijay Ramteke,
Aged about 17 years, Minor, through
Next Friend Guardian Grand-mother i.e.
respondent No.1 both resident of Station
Fail, Wardha, Tah. & Dist. Wardha.
3] Maheshkumar Chandrakumar Chunisiya,
Aged adult, Scooter Owner, R/o Golibar Chowk,
Bajirao Galli, Nagpur, Tah. & Dist. Nagpur.
4] Mohd. Ikram Mohd. Usman,
Driver, R/o Mahadeopura, Wardha,
Tah. & Dist. Wardha. ....... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri D.S. Dharaskar, Advocate for Appellant.
None for Respondents.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.
DATE: 23 rd
MAY, 2017.
fa1132.07.J.odt 2/4
ORAL JUDGMENT
1] Heard Shri Dharaskar, Advocate for appellant.
Nobody appears for respondents. Respondents Nos.1 and 2 are the
claimants before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Claim
Petition No.104 of 2004. Shri Dharaskar submits that Scooter
which has caused accident was driven by Mohd. Ikram i.e.
respondent No.4 in present appeal and respondent No.2 in
M.A.C.T. proceedings. Said Mohd. Ikram did not possess driving
licence and was carrying two more persons as pillion rider.
Thus, a two wheeler like Scooter which legally can be occupied by
a driver and a pillion rider was carrying three persons and as such
the breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy is apparent.
Mohd. Ikram could not have been also recognized as third party,
in so far as accident is concerned. He therefore, prays for allowing
the appeal. He has no objection if claimants are permitted to
recover the amount of compensation from Mohd. Ikram or his
estate.
2] Nobody appears for either the claimant or other
respondents.
fa1132.07.J.odt 3/4
3] Only question to be looked into is whether M.A.C.T.
was justified in directing appellant-Insurance Company to pay the
amount of compensation to respondent Nos.1 and 2 and then to
recover it from respondent No.4-Mohd. Ikram?
4] However, perusal of order dated 04.04.2008 passed
by this Court in present appeal as also in First Appeal No.69 of
2008 reveals that while admitting the appeals this Court granted
stay of coercive recovery from appellant. It is not very clear
whether the claimants, therefore, have executed the award of
M.A.C.T. against respondent No.4-Mohd. Ikram only.
5] Similarly, fate of the other appeal No.69 of 2008,
which arise out of same accident is also not known today.
6] The insurance policy in the name of Mohd. Ikram is
not in dispute. Thus, offending vehicle was duly insured with third
party risk and claimants (present respondent Nos.1 and 2)
constitute third party. The M.A.C.T. has not awarded any
compensation to Mohd. Ikram. Having issued policy in the name
of Mohd. Ikram, appellant cannot urge Mohd. Ikram did not
possess a valid driving licence.
fa1132.07.J.odt 4/4
7] The M.A.C.T. has permitted appellant-Insurance
Company to recover compensation from respondent No.4 after it
is paid to the claimant by the appellant. Thus in present facts,
interest of the appellant are sufficiently protected.
8] Taking overall view of the matter, I do not see any
jurisdictional error or perversity in the order impugned. No case is
made out. Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
JUDGE
NSN
