JUDGMENT
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. The respondent No. 1 filed O.P. No. 443 of 1993 before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vizianagaram claiming a sum of Rs. 50,000 as compensation for the injuries said to have been sustained by him in an accident that took place on 21.5.1993. The accident is said to have been caused on account of rash and negligent driving of an auto bearing No. ABV 2932, driven by respondent No. 2, owned by the respondent No. 3 and insured with the appellant. Through its Order, dated 2.6.1995, the Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000 in favour of the respondent No. 1 towards ‘no fault liability’.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal has not taken into account the contributory negligence as well as the fact that the auto in question was insured only for business purpose. Learned counsel contends that once the vehicle was registered and insured as a goods vehicle, it ought not to have carried the passengers.
3. Though respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are added as the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No. 1, there is no response from them. Heard the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, the owner of the vehicle.
4. In the O.P., PWs 1 and 2 were examined on behalf of the respondent No. 1 and Exhs. A-l to A-3 were marked. On behalf of respondents, RW 1 was examined and Exh. B-l was marked, in addition, Exhs. X-l and X-2, X-ray photo film and the disability certificate were also marked.
5. The fact that the respondent No. 1 sustained injuries in the accident, involved in the said vehicle, is not in dispute. The controversy was only as to whether the appellant herein is liable to pay the compensation. A reading of the Order under appeal discloses that the Tribunal did not address itself to the question as to the exact amount payable as compensation to respondent No. 1. The reason appears to be that having regard to the nature of vehicle and type of insurance, it has proceeded to award a sum of Rs. 25,000 as ‘no fault liability’. Though such an approach is not satisfactory, the fact remains that the deceased, who sustained injuries, is no more and it is already a decade since the accident took place. No useful purpose would be served by undertaking any fresh adjudication into the matter.
6. So far as the grievance of the appellant is concerned, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur, , in cases where the insurance company is mulcted with the liability as regards payment for the death or bodily injury to passengers in goods vehicles, it shall be entitled to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle by initiating the execution proceedings in the same O.P., without the necessity of filing any suit or other proceedings. This question was not clearly addressed to by Claims Tribunal, obviously, because of the principles of law prevailing as on that date. If the appellant is of the view that it is entitled to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle, i.e., respondent No. 3, it shall be entitled to initiate execution proceedings against him. In such an event, it shall be open to the respondent No. 3 to take such pleas, as to fact and law, as are open to him.
7. The C.M.A., is accordingly dismissed with the above observations. No Order as to costs.