Asha Devi vs The State of Jharkhand, Ors.

This appeal has been preferred against the judgment/award dated 18.09.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge?III cum? Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Jamshedpur in Compensation Case No.05 of 2012 whereby the respondent/ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. was directed to deposit the award of Rs.2,79,000/? less the amount, if any paid under Section 140 of the M.V. Act, to be paid to the claimant with the right to recover the paid amount from the appellant/owner.

Mr. Dilip Kr. Karmakar, learned counsel for the appellant/owner has submitted that the vehicle was duly insured which is evident from the findings of the court below as per para?11 of the impugned judgment. It is submitted that since the vehicle was duly insured, the onus and liability to pay the compensation was upon the respondent/insurance company. That the Tribunal has erred in granting the right to recover the compensation amount from the owner of the vehicle. It is submitted by the learned counsel that in terms of Section 145 of the M.V. Act when there is valid insurance, the insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner for the liability in case of injury or death of the victim of a motor accident. On the above grounds, it is contended that the impugned judgment and order is fit to be set aside and the liability to pay the award should be fastened upon the respondent/insurance company.

Mr. Bibhash Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent/insurance company has submitted that it is not disputed that the vehicle was duly insured with the respondent/insurance company at the time of accident. It is amply clear that the insurer had examined the surveyor/investigator Santosh Kumar and the certificate of the D.T.O., Hazaribagh has been marked, Exhibit?A. The driving license was not issued in the name of Sheru Singh, the driver of the offending vehicle. The owner abstained from participating in the proceeding after filing of the written statement and the Tribunal has rightly held that there was violation of the terms and conditions of the policy.

Heard. From perusal of the impugned order it is apparent that the appellant/owner, after filing of the written statement, did not participate in the proceeding. The respondent/insurance company has examined the surveyor/investigator and also produced the certificate of the D.T.O., whereby the court below has recorded a finding that the driving licence No.4281/99 was not issued in the name of the driver of the offending vehicle. The driver did not have a valid driving licence on the date of the accident.

Thus, in the attending facts and circumstances, the Tribunal has rightly held that there was violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the appellant/insurance company has the right to recover the compensation amount from the appellant/owner. In view of the evidence on record, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order meriting any interference by this court, consequently the appeal is hereby dismissed.

Accordingly, the interlocutory application Nos.255 of 2016 and 168 of 2017 stand disposed off.