AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.S. Sudhalkar, J.—The point to be decided in all these three appeals i.e., F.A.O. Nos. 2913, 2914 and 2915 of 2001 being the same shall be disposed of by this common judgment.
These appeal are filed by the Insurance Company, which is also made liable by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to pay the awarded amount to the claimant-respondent, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the driver of the vehicle was not having a valid driving licence and hence, the Insurance Company could not have been saddled with the liability to pay the amount. In these three cases, the Tribunal has held that the licence of the driver was fake. However, it had relied on the case of New India Assurance Company v. Kamla 2001 P L R 127. Their Lordships have held in that case that the Insurer and insured are bound by the conditions ( enumerated in the policy and the insurer is not liable to the insured if there is violation of any policy conditions. But the insurer who is made statutory liable to pay compensation to third parties on account of the certificate of insurance issued shall be entitled to recover from the insured the amount paid to the third parties, if there was any breach of policy conditions on account of the vehicle being driven without a valid driving licence. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the award of the driver.
If the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the amount from the insured, it may take legal steps if advised. We have held in the case of National Insurance Company v. Bhagwani Devi and Ors. 2002 130 P.L.R. 1 that for this purpose, the Insurance Company can file a Civil Suit. After referring to Section 175 of the Motor Vehicles Act we have observed in this judgment as under:-
"This section does not convey the meaning which the learned counsel for the appellant wants us to derive from it. What is barred is filing of the civil suit relating to any claim for compensation. The claim is already decided and hence chapter in that regard is over. Now what remains is the question of liability of one of the tort-feasors and his insurer and this has to be decided in view of the contract of insurance between them. This section, therefore, does not bar a civil suit by any insurance company against the insured for recovery of the amount. No other provision or decision to the contrary has been shown to us by the learned counsel for the appellant."
Of course, in a civil suit it can be decided whether there was a breach of condition of payment or not.
No other ground has been argued.
In view of the above reasons, we do not find any merit in these appeals and the same are hereby dismissed.