National Insurance Co. Ltd. ... vs Sunita Devi
2021 Latest Caselaw 4798 Jhar

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                    M.A. No. 163 of 2016
                                              -----

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Sakchi Branch, Jamshedpur. .... Appellant

-Versus-

             1. Sunita Devi
             2. Bambhola Lohra
             3. Kailash Lohra
             4. Tulsi Kumari
             5. Rekha Devi                                      ... Respondents
                                              ----
          CORAM       :      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
                                              -----
          For the appellant(s):         Mr. G.C. Jha, Advocate.

For Claimants-respondent(s): M/S A.K. Das and Tirthankar Bose, Advocate.

          For the Owner:                Mr. Suraj Singh, Advocate.
                                              ----

12/14.12.2021:        This appeal has been filed by the Appellant-Insurance Company

challenging the award dated 16.12.2015 passed by the District Judge-III-cum- Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Compensation Case No. 131 of 2014.

2. Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that the Insurance Company has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,32,800/- along with interest to the claimants with a right of recovery of the said amount. He further submits that the Insurance Company has raised only one point in this appeal as in para 10 of the judgment while deciding issue Nos. 2 and 3, the Tribunal has held that the Insurance Company is entitled to recovery of the amount of compensation, but in the final paragraph i.e. conclusion para of the award, the Tribunal has omitted to incorporate the right of recovery in favour of the Insurance Company. This is the only ground, which has been taken in this appeal.

3. Counsel for the claimants submits that it is the Insurance Company who is directed to pay the amount and right to recovery has been given to the Insurance Company.

4. Counsel for the owner of the vehicle submits that the Tribunal has wrongly concluded that there was violation of the permit at the time of accident as the accident had not taken place outside the permit area. The owner has not challenged the aforesaid finding of the Tribunal by filing an appeal or by filing a cross-objection.

5. Considering the small issue, which has been raised by the Insurance Company, I find that while deciding issue Nos. 2 and 3, which are in relation to violation of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, there is a specific finding of the Tribunal that the offending vehicle Mini Bus was being operated outside permit area at the time of accident, thus there is violation of terms and conditions of the Insurance policy. The Tribunal after holding such, had directed the Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation, giving the right of recovery of the said amount. This is clear from para 10 of the Award dated 16.12.2015.

6. When I go through the last para (para 13) of the impugned award, I find that the Insurance Company was directed to pay the compensation amount of Rs.4,32,800/- along with interest to the claimants after adjusting the amount paid under Section 140 of the M.V. Act. The Tribunal has failed to incorporate the direction of right of recovery of the compensation amount, which was already been granted in para 10 of the impugned award.

7. In view of conjoint reading of paras 10 and 13 of the impugned award, I find that the Tribunal had intention to grant right of recovery to the Insurance Company and in fact, it was granted. Thus the omission of the Tribunal to incorporate the direction regarding the right of recovery in para 13 is not of much relevance as the said right has already been granted to the Insurance Company in para 10 of the impugned award. Thus the Insurance Company has right to recover the amount of compensation from the owner of the offending vehicle bearing registration No. JH05Y 3352.

8. Since the interest of the Insurance Company has been protected by giving the right to recover the amount of compensation from the owner of the offending vehicle, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned award dated 16.12.2015 passed by the District Judge-III-cum-Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Compensation Case No. 131 of 2014. Thus, no further order needs to be passed in this appeal.

9. The Insurance Company is directed to satisfy the award after calculating the interest. If any amount is deposited with the Tribunal pursuant to any order, the same should be withdrawn by the Insurance Company, if not disbursed to the claimants. If the amount of compensation along with interest is not disbursed to the claimants, the same should be paid by the Insurance Company to the claimants.

10. The statutory amount deposited before the Registrar General, High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi will be refunded to the appellant-Insurance Company.

11. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this appeal stands disposed of.

Anu/-CP2. (ANANDA SEN, J.)