AO/51/2011
2021 Latest Caselaw 4793 UK

                Office Notes,
             reports, orders or
SL.           proceedings or
      Date                                            COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No             directions and
             Registrar's order
              with Signatures
                                  AO No. 51 of 2011
                                  Shri Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.

Shri B.K. Gupta, Advocate for the appellant - Insurance Company.

On the last date, none appears for the parties. On that date, this Court observed that if on the next date, nobody appears then appropriate order shall be passed in absence of the parties.

Today, Shri B.K. Gupta, Advocate for the appellant is present but none appears on behalf of the respondents, therefore, this matter is taken up for final hearing in spite of the fact that respondents' counsels are absent.

Shri B.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant submits that there has been a violation of condition of permit, hence, sub- clause (c) of Clause (a) of sub-Section 2 of Section 149 will apply in this case and for that reason the Insurance Company cannot be asked to pay the amount of award in favour of claimants and recovering the same from the owner.

In this case, the learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal has relied upon a judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case National Insurance Company Vs. Chhalla Baharathamma reported in 2005 (1) TAC 4 (Supreme Court). In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a piece of welfare legislation, so in these types of cases, Insurance Company should be asked to pay the compensation with recovery rights from the owner.

In the present case, the Tribunal has done exactly the same. So there appears no reason to interfere the finding recorded by Tribunal.

The appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit Lower court record be sent back forthwith.

(S.K. Mishra, J.) 29.11.2021 SKS