Jharkhand High Court
Jagdeo Sao vs Binod Singh on 9 May, 2022
M.A. No.24 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No.24 of 2013
------
(Against the Award dated 12.09.2012 passed in Claim Case No.27 of
2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chatra)
Jagdeo Sao ........... Appellant
Versus
1. Binod Singh, son of Sri Kamlapati Singh
2. Anand Kumar, son of Binod Singh,
3. Ritu Kumari, daughter of Binod Singh
4. Puja Kumari, daughter of Binod Singh
5. Uttam Kumar, son of Binod Singh
........... Claimants/Respondents
6. Yogendra Sao, son of Sri Ramdas Sao, resident of Village Bagdaha
, P.O. & P.S.- Bodhgaya, District- Gaya(Bihar)
7. National Insurance Company Limited through its Branch
Manager, at Patna Hazaribagh Road, P.O., P.S. & District-
Hazaribagh ........... O.P. No./Respondents
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
Mrs. Swati Shalini, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate
: Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court: - Heard the parties.
2. This appeal is preferred against the award dated 12.09.2012 passed in
Claim Case No.27 of 2006 by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chatra
whereby and whereunder, the appellant being the owner of the vehicle in
question, was directed by learned MACT, Chatra, to pay Rs.3,60,000/- to the
claimants as compensation and to pay Rs.50,000/- to the Insurance Company
who has to pay the claimants within one month from the date of award,
failing which, he will have to pay interest @ 7 % from the date of award till its
realization.
3. The brief facts of this case is that the claimants are respectively the
husband and children of the deceased-Aasha Devi who died by succumbing
to the injuries sustained in the motor vehicle accident on 17.01.2006 while she
M.A. No.24 of 2013
was travelling in the tractor which was driven by the respondent no.6 herein
in rash and negligent manner and the said tractor and trailer turned turtle
because of the said rash and negligent driving.
4. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant submits
that the appellant-owner of the vehicle, confines his challenge to the
impugned award only to ground that the learned MACT, Chatra ought to
have directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount to the
claimants and later on recover the same from the appellant-opposite party
no.2, and submits that the appellant abandons all other grounds, agitated by
the appellant in the appeal memo. Learned counsel for the claimants-
respondent nos.1 to 5 also supports the contention of the appellant that
learned MACT, Chatra ought to have directed the Insurance Company being
respondent no.7 to pay the compensation amount to the claimants and to
recover the same from the appellant.
5. In support of her contention, the learned counsel for the appellant
relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case
of Shivawwa and Anr. Vs. Branch Manager, National India Insurance
Company Limited and Anr. reported in (2018) 5 SCC 762, para 13 of which
reads as under:
"13.Assuming for the sake of argument that the Insurance Company was not liable
to pay compensation amount awarded to the claimants as the offending tractor was
duly insured, the insurer would still be liable to pay the compensation amount in the
first instance with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle owner
(Respondent 2), in light of the exposition in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran
Singh [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 : 2004 SCC
(Cri) 733] .
(emphasis supplied)
and submits that in the said case the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has in
no uncertain manner has laid down the principle of law that even though the
insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation amount still the
insurance company can be directed to pay the compensation amount to the
claimants of the motor vehicle accident compensation case and to recover the
said compensation amount later on from the owner of the vehicle without
filing any fresh case and by executing the orders so made by the tribunal. It is
then submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant, that the impugned
award being not in consonance in law to the aforesaid extent, hence the
M.A. No.24 of 2013
impugned award be modified by directing the respondent number 7
Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount to the claimants and
later on recover the same from the appellant.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent no.7 being the Insurance Company
on the other hand submits that it is a case where neither the victim nor the
Insurance Company has preferred any appeal and the owner of the vehicle
who ultimately has to pay the amount, has at the time of hearing of this
appeal did not challenge his liability to ultimately pay the compensation
amount and at the time of hearing of argument of this appeal, the appellant-
owner of the vehicle, has voluntarily confined his challenge to the impugned
award only to the extent that the learned tribunal ought to have passed a pay
and recovery order directing the insurance company to pay the compensation
amount and to later on realize the same from the appellant-owner of the
vehicle involved in the motor vehicle accident, which shows that the
appellant has ulterior motive, in seeking such a relief of modification of the
impugned award.
7. Drawing attention of this Court towards para 8 of the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Oriental Insurance Company
Ltd. Vs. Nanjappan and Ors. reported in AIR (2004) SC 1630 which reads as
under:
"8. Therefore, while setting aside the judgment of the High Court we direct
in terms of what has been stated in Baljit Kaur case [(2004) 2 SCC 1 : (2004)
1 Scale 124] that the insurer shall pay the quantum of compensation fixed
by the Tribunal, about which there was no dispute raised, to the respondent
claimants within three months from today. For the purpose of recovering the
same from the insured, the insurer shall not be required to file a suit. It may
initiate a proceeding before the executing court concerned as if the dispute
between the insurer and the owner was the subject-matter of determination
before the Tribunal and the issue is decided against the owner and in favour
of the insurer. Before release of the amount to the claimants, owner of the
vehicle shall be issued a notice and he shall be required to furnish security
for the entire amount which the insurer will pay to the claimants. The
offending vehicle shall be attached, as a part of the security. If necessity
arises the executing court shall take assistance of the Regional Transport
Authority concerned. The executing court shall pass appropriate orders in
accordance with law as to the manner in which the insured, owner of the
M.A. No.24 of 2013
vehicle shall make payment to the insurer. In case there is any default it
shall be open to the executing court to direct realization by disposal of the
securities to be furnished or from any other property or properties of the
owner of the vehicle, the insured. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid
terms, with no order as to costs."
It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent no.7 being
Insurance Company that when a tribunal passes an order to pay the
compensation amount to the claimants and recover the same from the
owner of the vehicle later on, the owner of the vehicle can be asked to
furnish sufficient security to secure the amount paid by the insurance
company to the claimants.
8. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent no.7
being Insurance Company that if the impugned award is modified by
directing the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount awarded
by the learned tribunal to the claimants and to recover the compensation
amount from the appellant-owner of the vehicle later on, then in that case the
appellant be also directed to furnish, security within three months from the
date of this order for the entire compensation amount, which the insurer will
have to pay to the claimants.
9. Having heard the submissions made at the bar and after going
through the materials in the record; the sole point for determination in this
appeal is:
"As to whether the learned MACT, Chatra erred by not directing the
Insurance Company to pay compensation amount to the claimants and later on
to recover the same from the appellant being the owner of the vehicle?"
10 It is by now a settled principal of law as has been decided by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a catena of cases including Shivawwa and
Anr. Vs. Branch Manager, National India Insurance Company Limited
(Supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the
principle that in case the insurance policy of the vehicle involved in the motor
vehicle accident is a valid one then even if the insurance company is not liable
to pay the compensation because of one reason or the other, still the insurance
company be directed by the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal to pay
the compensation amount awarded by the tribunal to the claimants in respect
of the motor vehicle accident and to recover the same from the owner of the
vehicle, even in the absence of any liability to pay compensation to the
M.A. No.24 of 2013
Insurance Company, hence this Court has no hesitation in holding that the
learned MACT, Chatra ought to have directed the respondent no.7 being the
Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants and
recover the same from the appellant-owner. It is also pertinent to mention
here that this is a peculiar case where instead of the victims coming with
prayer for direction to the insurance company for a pay and recovery order
by the tribunal, the owner of the vehicle has come by making the prayer for
pay and recovery order against the insurance company. The sole point for
determination is answered accordingly.
11. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that this
is a fit case, where the appellant be directed to furnish the security for the
entire amount which the insurer have to pay to the claimants being
respondent nos.1 to 5 of this appeal, in terms of the impugned award passed
by the tribunal, within three months from the date of the disposal of this
appeal.
12. In view of the findings of the sole point for determination as mentioned
above in this judgment, the operative portion of the award dated 12.09.2012
passed in Claim Case No.27 of 2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Chatra is modified to extent that the respondent no.7 being
Insurance Company of this appeal is directed to pay Rs.3,60,000/-, with
interest @ 7 % per annum from the date of award i.e.,12.09.2012 to till the date
of payment to the claimants being respondent nos.1 to 5, by appropriate
mode as per law, within 3 months from the date of this judgment, with right
to recover the said entire amount of compensation paid by the respondent
no.7 being Insurance Company of this appeal to the claimants from the
appellant-owner of the vehicle of this appeal by execution only and not filing
any separate suit therefor. Further the appellant-owner of the vehicle is
directed to furnish the security for the entire amount which the respondent
no.7 being Insurance Company of this appeal has to pay to the claimants
being respondent nos.1 to 5 of this appeal, in terms of the impugned award
passed by the tribunal, within three months from the date of the disposal of
this appeal.
13. The Award dated 12.09.2012 passed in Claim Case No.27 of 2006 passed
by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chatra is modified to the aforesaid extent
only.
M.A. No.24 of 2013
14. This appeal is disposed of accordingly.
15. No order as to costs.
16. Let a copy of this order along with LCR be sent back to the court below
forthwith.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 9th of May, 2022.
AFR/ Pappu
