JUDGMENT
U.C. Maheshwari, J.
1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity ‘the Act’), has been preferred by claimants-appellants being dissatisfied with the award of the 11th Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur (for short ‘the Tribunal’) passed in Claim Case No. 159 of 1994, dated 28.2.1998. By the impugned award the Tribunal has exonerated respondent No. 3 the insurer and awarded Rs. 1,27,200 only along with interest of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the application. The appellants have come to this court for enhancement of the amount of award and mulcting the liability on the insurer.
2. As per the case of the appellants, on 27.12.1980 at 11 p.m. in night Pradeep Kumar, son of appellants, aged 21 years, was going to verify about a commercial truck by riding on his Luna and when he reached near Karamchand Chowk, Jabalpur, a truck bearing registration No. CIJ 8242 suddenly came and dashed against Luna. Due to this collision Pradeep Kumar was seriously injured. From the place of the incident he was shifted to the hospital. In spite of treatment, he succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. The matter was reported at Police Station, Omti, Jabalpur where the offences under Sections 297, 337 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code were registered against respondent No. 1, who was driving the said truck in a rash and negligent manner and caused the said accident. The police after holding investigation submitted the charge-sheet before the concerned criminal court from which the claimants have taken over the certain certified copies of the documents and filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Act for grant of compensation. It has also been pleaded in the claim petition that on the date of the incident the vehicle was registered in the name of respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3.
3. After conclusion of the trial the Tribunal by the impugned award has awarded Rs. 1,27,200 along with interest of 12 per cent per annum on all the heads and has absolved the respondent No. 3 the insurer from the liability on the ground that at the time of accident, respondent No. 1 driver was under intoxicated condition and, therefore, the respondent No. 3 is not liable for any compensation. The award has been passed only against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who have suffered the ex parte award.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for appellants, Mr. S.K. Jain, Mr. Arvind Chawla the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and Mrs. Amrit Ruprah the learned counsel for respondent No. 3.
5. We have perused the record and the material brought on record, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has erroneously exonerated the respondent No. 3 as regards the liability qua the accident. On the date of the accident the vehicle was insured with the respondent No. 3 and by receiving the premium it is responsible for the whole liability relating to any accident. The vehicle was covered and the deceased Pradeep Kumar was any way not responsible for causing the said accident.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 insurer, Mrs. Ruprah has submitted that according to the policy of the vehicle, such liability cannot be fastened on the insurance company because the respondent No. 1 was under intoxicated condition at the time of the accident and the terms were violated. In our considered opinion, the aforesaid contention is not sustainable. Once the insurer has received the premium and insured the vehicle then the liability in relation to the third party like the deceased shall be covered under the policy. In any case, in the case at hand, the breach is not so fundamental so as to exonerate the insurance company. In certain cases after satisfying the claim of the applicant, the insurer would be entitled to recover the amount of compensation from the registered owner and driver of the vehicle. In the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamla, 2001 ACJ 843 (SC), the Supreme Court has held thus:
“(25) The position can be summed up thus: The insurer and insured are bound by the conditions enumerated in the policy and the insurer is not liable to the insured if there is violation of any policy condition. But the insurer who is made statutorily liable to pay compensation to third parties on account of the certificate of insurance issued shall be entitled to recover from the insured the amount paid to the third parties, if there was any breach of policy conditions on account of the vehicle being driven without a valid driving licence. The learned counsel for the insured contended that it is enough if he establishes that he made all due inquiries and believed bona fide that the driver employed by him had a valid driving licence, in which case there was no breach of the policy condition. As we have not decided on that contention it is open to the insured to raise it before the Claims Tribunal. In the present case, if the insurance company succeeds in establishing that there was a breach of the policy condition, the Claims Tribunal shall direct the insured to pay that amount to the insurer. In default the insurer shall be allowed to recover that amount (which the insurer is directed to pay to the claimants-third parties) from the insured person.”
This view was again followed by the Apex Court in the matter of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lehru, 2003 ACJ 611 (SC), in which the driver was having fake licence and on that ground the matter was considered and decided. Their Lordships held as under:
“More importantly even in such a case the insurance company would remain liable to the innocent third party, but it may be able to recover from the insured. This is the law which has been laid down in Skandia’s case, 1987 ACJ 411 (SC); Sohan Lal Passi’s case, 1996 ACJ 1044 (SC) and Kamla’s case, 2001 ACJ 843 (SC). We are in full agreement with the views expressed therein and see no reason to take a different view.”
7. Besides this the insurer cannot deny the liability to satisfy the claim relating to the motor vehicle which insurer has insured and there has been really no breach. Therefore, we hold that the respondent No. 3 insurance company is liable and bound to satisfy the claim of the applicant and in this regard the findings of the Tribunal are perverse and contrary to law and the same are set aside. It is held that the award shall also be enforceable against the insurance company.
8. So far as the quantum and interest are concerned, in our considered opinion, the assessment which has been held by the Tribunal is proper and based on settled legal position and they do not require interference at this juncture and, therefore, the award is hereby maintained, so far as the quantum and interest are concerned. Therefore, the appeal, so far enhancement of the award amount is concerned, is hereby dismissed.
9. In above said premises, the appeal is partly allowed as to the extent indicated hereinabove. There shall be no order as to costs.