S.P Srivastava and M.P Singh, JJ.:— Heard the learned counsel for the insurer appellant. The appellant is aggrieved by the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mathura (U.P), determining an amount of Rs. 2,70,800 as just compensation to which the claimants were found entitled to on account of the death of their only son Ganga Sharma in an accident which took place on 5.10.2000 involving the offending motor vehicle.
2. The Tribunal after carefully considering the evidence and materials brought on record, had come to the conclusion that the deceased was earning Rs. 2,000 p.m and the extent of the dependency had been determined to be at a figure of Rs. 1,400 p.m The multiplier of 16 had been utilised to arrive at the figure of the amount of compensation.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant has tried to assail the findings returned against the appellant by the Tribunal on crucial facts. It may be noticed that no permission as contemplated under section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act had been obtained by the insurer appellant.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant who has tried to assail the findings returned by the Tribunal against the appellant has not been able to demonstrate that these findings can be taken to be suffering from any such legal infirmity which may justify any interference therein by this court. These findings are amply supported and warranted by the evidence brought on record.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant has further urged that in any view of the matter, the Tribunal ought to have protected the interest of the insurer in view of the plea raised by the appellant about the breach of the terms and conditions subject to which the insurance policy had been issued covering the risk. The contention is that the driver of the offending motor vehicle did not have valid driving licence to drive the heavy vehicle.
6. So far as this aspect of the matter is concerned, the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the photocopy of the valid driving licence had been brought on record but in spite of the fact that all the details in regard to the issue of aforesaid driving licence and the period of its validity had been brought to the notice of the insurer, no steps had been taken to lead evidence in rebuttal in support of the plea that the driver was not having a valid licence at the time of the accident.
7. In the present case, the insurer appellant was required to discharge the statutory liability cast upon it for the payment of the awarded amount to the claimants. The inter se dispute between the owner-insured and the present appellant in regard to any breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy could be decided in appropriate proceedings initiated by the insurer appellant against the owner-insured after the amount of compensation had been paid to the claimants.
8. So far as the claimants are concerned on the findings returned by the Tribunal, referred to hereinabove, no interference is called for in the impugned award by this court.
9. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed in limine leaving it open to the insurer appellant to initiate appropriate proceedings for the refund of the amount paid to the claimants from the owner-insured in accordance with law.
10. As prayed, the amount of Rs. 25,000 deposited in this court under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act be remitted to the concerned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal so that it may be adjusted against the amount to be paid to the claimants.
11. Appeal dismissed.
Comments