National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Baljinder Kaur and Others

Vijender Singh Malik, J.—This is an appeal brought by National Insurance Company Limited, the insurer challenging the award dated 08.08.2013 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jalandhar (for short ''the Tribunal''). Sukhdeep Singh died in a road side accident that took place on 23.01.2009. He was 25 years of age at the time of his death. On his death, his parents had brought a claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation in a sum of Rs. 35,00,000/-. Learned Tribunal vide the impugned award has allowed the claim petition in a sum of Rs. 10,71,000/-. The award has been challenged on two grounds. The first ground is that the multiplier has been adopted by learned Tribunal on the basis of the age of the deceased, who has been a bachelor and the second ground is that though respondent No. 1 Mohinder Singh was not found to possess a valid driving licence, still the insurer has been ordered to pay compensation with a right to recover the same from respondent No. 2, the owner of the vehicle.

Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the multiplier should have been adopted on the basis of the age of the claimants and when respondent No. 1 was not found to be holding a valid driving licence, the insurer should have been completely exonerated from payment of compensation. He has cited before me a decision of Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in III (2013) ACC 918 (SC) It was a case where the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of the accident and the question was whether the insurance company would be completely exonerated, the same was answered in affirmative.

The recovery rights are granted to the insurance company with the initial liability to pay compensation in case the claimant is a third party. The third party cannot know about the position of the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle. In such a situation, even if the driving licence is found to be fake, the liability of the insurer would not be there and for that reason itself right to recover the amount is given to the insurance company. The decision cited by learned counsel for the appellant does not help the appellant. It is not with regard to the claim of the third party in which case order can be made to the insurer to pay the compensation with a further right to recover the same from the owner. There is a direct decision of Hon''ble Supreme Court of India on this point in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Geeta Bhat and Others, which was a case where the driver possessed a fake driving licence.

It was held that if the driver possessed the fake driving licence, it would not absolve the insurer to reimburse the owner of the vehicle in respect of the amount awarded in favour of 3rd party by learned Tribunal in exercise of its jurisdiction u/s 166 of the Act and in the interest of justice, the insurance company was directed to pay the amount of award with liberty to recover the same from owner and driver of the vehicle. Therefore, the order of learned Tribunal directing the insurer to pay the amount of compensation to third party to the claimant, and third party with right to the insurer to recover the amount later on from the owner cannot be held bad.

There is no merit in the other submission of learned counsel for the appellant also. It has been held by Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in Amrit Bhanu Shali and Others Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others, that the multiplier has to be adopted on the basis of the age of the deceased irrespective of the fact that he is a bachelor. In these circumstances, I do not find any merit in the appeal. The same is dismissed in limine.