Court No. - 27 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 574 of 2003 Petitioner :- United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Thru Div. Manager Respondent :- Smt. Phool Mati & 4 Ors. Petitioner Counsel :- Saurabh Chandra Respondent Counsel :- T.C. Seth,T.C.Seth Hon'ble Devi Prasad Singh,J.
Hon’ble S.C. Chaurasia,J.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
None appeared for the respondents.
The present appeal has been preferred under section 173 of the
Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the impugned award dated 31st May,
2003 passed by the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal/Special
Judge (E.C.Act)/A.D.J., Pratapgarh in M.A.C. Petition No. 20 of 1992.
The brief facts of the case are that on 11-12-1991 at about 7.30
p.m. when the husband of the claimant Sri Srinath was going to market
alongwith the agricultural produce on the tractor, he sustained injuries
and succumbed to death. An F.I.R. was lodged against the owner of the
vehicle as well as the driver of the tractor no. U.P. 72/9085.
Feeling aggrieved, the claimant has approached the Tribunal for
payment of compensation. The Tribunal after providing the opportunity
of hearing to the parties, has recorded a finding that the accident
occurred because of rash and negligent driving of the tractor no. U.P.
72/9085. It has also been held that the deceased has sustained injuries
because of the accident caused by the tractor in question. However, a
finding has been recorded by the Tribunal that the driver of the tractor
was not having a valid licence to ply the vehicle.
It has also been observed by the Tribunal that the tractor could not
be used as passsengers carrier. Accordingly, the Tribunal has held that
instead of the Insurance Company, the owner of the vehicle, shall be
liable to pay compensation. The Tribunal has further opined that the
entire compensation may be paid by the appellant-Insurance Company
which it may recover from the owner of the vehicle in accordance to law.
The Tribunal has further observed that in pursuance to the provisions
contained in section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, the Insuance
Company may recover the compensation paid to the claimant, from the
owner of the vehicle. No material irregularity has been pointed out by
the learned counsel for the appellant while assailing the Tribunal’s
Judgment. Only argument advanced by the learned counsel for the
appellant-Insurance Company is that the Insurance Company is not
liable to pay the dues in question on the ground that there was no valid
driving lincence with the driver of the vehicle. On that count also, the
Tribunal has given an option to the appellant to recover the dues from
the owner of the vehicle in question.
In view of the above, the findings recorded by the Tribunal does
not suffer from any impropriety or illegality. The appeal is devoid of
merit. It is dismissed accordingly with a liberty to the appellant to
recover the amount in question from the owner of the vehicle in
accordance to law.
Order Date :- 6.1.2010
AKS