Madhya Pradesh High Court
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Bhuvnesh Pathak And Anr. on 16 February, 1999
Equivalent citations: 2001ACJ1069
JUDGMENT S.C. Pandey, J.
1. The respondent No. 1, Bhuvnesh Pathak, widow of late Paramsukh alias Parmeshwar Pathak, filed the claim case against the driver/respondent No. 2, Manoj Pathak, who is her own son as well as against the appellant. It was claimed by her in the application for grant of compensation that the respondent No. 2, Manoj Pathak was driving the tractor along with a trolley, bearing registration No. MP 16-A-5411. The trolley was loaded with stones and Paramsukh alias Parmeshwar Pathak was sitting in the trolley. The tractor and trolley turned turtle and on account of that Paramsukh alias Parmeshwar Pathak died. He was the owner and insured of the tractor.
2. The Claims Tribunal granted compensation amounting to Rs. 50,000 to the respondent No. 1, Bhuvnesh Pathak, after rejecting the contention of the appellant that the insured was not entitled to claim any damages.
3. In this appeal, it is sought to be argued that the insured is not covered by the policy and no liability can be attached upon the insurance company even if the owner was injured. This question would require the interpretation of the policy itself and in view of the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Thaglu Singh 1995 ACJ 248 (MP), there is hardly any scope for interfering with the impugned award. In the aforesaid case, it has been laid down by the Division Bench in para 14, at page 252 that:
...If the vehicle is insured, naturally the liability would fall on the insurer; permitting the insurer at that stage to raise any defence other than that there is no insurance policy in force at the relevant time or to raise the statutory defences contemplated in the succeeding Chapter would be to frustrate the legislative object in introducing the concept of no fault liability. The insured is duly protected inasmuch as if ultimately in the final award the insurer is exonerated, the Tribunal can issue appropriate direction enabling the insurer to collect the same from the owner of the vehicle. This could be the only legitimate conclusion to be drawn from the peremptory language of Section 92-A of the 1939 Act or Section 140 of the 1988 Act.
In view of this matter, it is not disputed before me that there is an insurance of the vehicle. The insurance company, therefore, can raise the statutory defences or defences based on the policy at the time of final award. It is not necessary to go into the merits of the case; in view of the aforesaid decision of a Division Bench of this court, which is binding on me, that the insurance company cannot challenge the interim award except on the ground that there is no insurance policy.
4. Further, it is clear from the impugned award that Rs. 25,000 out of Rs. 50,000 have already been deposited by the appellant insurance company in the fixed deposit account in favour of the respondent No. 1 in a nationalised bank for a period of two years. In this respect the impugned award is modified to the extent that after expiry of two years of fixed deposit of Rs. 25,000 it shall be renewed for a further period which the Claims Tribunal thinks necessary for final disposal of the claim case pending before it. The amount shall remain deposited in the fixed deposit till the final award is made. So far as the remaining amount of Rs. 25,000 is concerned, which is directed to be paid to the respondent No. 1 by the Claims Tribunal, this court follows the decision of a learned single Judge of this court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Raghuvir 1996 ACJ 196 (MP). It is directed that the respondent No. 1, Bhuvnesh Pathak, while withdrawing Rs. 25,000 (Rupees twenty-five thousand), shall furnish a solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Claims Tribunal with an undertaking that in case, it is ultimately found that the insurance company is not liable for payment of compensation, she shall pay interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum on Rs. 25,000 (Rupees twenty-five thousand) from the date of final award till its realisation.
5. In view of the observation made above, this appeal stands dismissed.