PATNA, India, July 17 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on July 10:

Heard Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Kameshwar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 13.10.2020 passed by the Learned MACT-cum-Additional District and Session Judge-XII, Patna in Claim Case No. 414 of 2018 whereby the appellant is directed to pay Rs. 56,91,080/- with interest of 6% per annum from the date of institution of the claim petition excluding paid amount under Section 140 of M.V. Act within 2 months.

3. Learned counsel submits that the impugned judgment/award is bad in the eye of law and also bad in the present facts and circumstances of the case. The impugned judgment is against the established law. He also submitted that the appellant i.e., UIICL being insurer, has been directed by the MACT to pay compensation amount, i.e. Rs. 56,91,080/- along with 6% simple interest from date of the institution of the case within two months from receiving/production of copy of the order dated 13.10.2020 to claimants. Further direction has been given to the Appellant/OP No.3 UIICL to recover the awarded amount from Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in the present appeal who are respondent 2nd Set/OP Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. driver and owner of Mini Bus in accordance with law.

4. He further submitted that the appellant filed this appeal inter alia primarily and fundamentally on the ground that Learned MACT has given liberty to the Appellant/OP No.3 i.e., UIICL to recover the awarded amount from Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in the present appeal who are respondent 2nd Set/OP Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. driver and owner of Mini Bus in accordance with law which is contrary to the well settled principle of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of M/S. National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Baljit Kaur And Ors reported in (2004) 2 SCC 1 and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Shri Nanjappan And Ors reported in (2004) 13 SCC 224. In both the cases it has specifically been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that for the purpose of such recovery, it would not be necessary for the insurer to file a separate suit but it may initiate a proceeding before the executing court as if the dispute between the insurer and the owner was the subject matter of determination before the tribunal and the issue is decided against the owner and in favour of the insurer.

5. It is further contended that the scope and purport of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in terms whereof it is not only entitled to determine the amount of claim as put forth by the claimant for recovery thereof from the insurer, owner or driver of the vehicle jointly or severally but also the dispute between the insurer on the one hand and the owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident inasmuch as can be resolved by the tribunal in such a proceeding.

6. Learned counsel submitted that the MACT without taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and material available on record in true and correct legal perspective decided Issue No. VII in two parts against the appellant in as much on one hand in paragraph no. 26 of the impugned judgment accepted the submission of the appellant but on another hand not adjudicated the same and hold therein that appellant is liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimants and liberty given to the appellant to recover the same under due process of law.

7. Lastly, he submitted that as such in view of the aforesaid submission the impugned order may be set aside to the extent to recover the awarded amount from Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in the present appeal who are respondent 2nd Set/OP Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. driver and owner of Mini Bus in accordance with law. Further for the purpose of recovering the same from the insured Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in the present appeal who are respondent 2nd Set/OP Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. driver and owner of Mini Bus respectively, the insurer i.e., the appellant may not be directed to file a suit. The Appellant may be given liberty to initiate a proceeding before the concerned Executing Court as if the dispute between the insurer and the owner was the subject matter of determination before the Tribunal and the issue is decided against the owner and in favour of the insurer. Before release of the amount to the insured, owner of the vehicle shall be issued a notice and he shall be required to furnish security for the entire amount which the insurer will pay to the claimants. The offending vehicle shall be attached, as a part of the security. If necessity arises the Executing Court shall take assistance of the concerned Regional Transport authority. The Executing Court shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as to the manner in which the insured, owner of the vehicle shall make payment to the insurer. In case there is any default it shall be open to the Executing Court to direct realization by disposal of the securities to be furnished or from any other property or properties of the owner of the vehicle, the insured.

The rest of the document can be viewed at https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MiMyNjkjMjAyMSMxI04=-ZqX--ak1--cG0O2A4=

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.