AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the Counsel for the appellant. The respondents having been served remain unrepresented.
The appellant is the insurer of a private car involved in an accident. The respondents herein were the legal representatives of a deceased victim, who was an occupant of the car involved in the accident. The appellant had contested the claim for compensation on the ground that the policy of insurance that was issued by the appellant was a ''Act only Policy'', which implied that the liability to cover the risk of an occupant of a private car was not covered and this contention was upheld by the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal has proceeded to direct the appellant to pay the compensation in the first instance and recover the same from the insured. It is this which is sought lo be challenged in the present appeal.
The Tribunal in directing the appellant lo pay the compensation and to recover the same is on the face of it erroneous and is without jurisdiction. When the liability of the appellant is not present, either statutorily or contractually, the direction to pay compensation and to recover the amount would not be available to the Tribunal since it cannot rewrite the contract in favour of the parties. Further, the possible inspiration drawn from the judgments of the Supreme Court issuing such a direction cannot also be pressed into service since the Supreme Court would be in a position to issue such directions by virtue of its extraordinary power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Such power is not available to the Tribunal. Hence direction to the appellant to pay compensation amount and recover the same from the insured is erroneous and is liable to be set aside.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. The liability insofar as the insurer is concerned is set aside. The claimants are at liberty to work out their remedies against the insured. The amount in deposit is be refunded to the appellant.