JUDGMENT
S.K. Keshote, J.
1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed by the non-claimant appellant, the United India Insurance Company Limited, against the award, dated 26.02.2003 of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sikar, in Claim Case No. 390/99. Under the impugned award the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,05,000/- as compensation in favour of the claimant respondent Nos. 1 to 6 for the death of Sohan lal in the motor vehicle accident took place on 22.09.1999.
2. The only contention raised by the learned Counsel for the non-claimant appellant is that the non-claimant respondent No. 7, Ram Lal, the driver of the offending motor cycle bearing No. MH 02D 7575, was not holding the valid driving license to drive the same and thus the non-claimant appellant Company is not liable to reimburse the amount of compensation awarded in favour of the claimant respondent Nos. 1 to 6. It is submitted that the driving license Exhibit-13 was only to drive the light motor vehicle and not two wheelers.
3. Shri Anoop Dhand, the learned Counsel for the owner of the offending motor cycle, contended that the owner thereof was not liable to make responsible for payment of the compensation, the non-claimant appellant Company is solely liable to make the payment and it cannot be given liberty to recover this amount from the non-claimant respondent No. 8, the owner of the offending motor cycle; he made reference to the written statement filed by the owner of the offending motor cycle as well as the statement recorded in the claim case.
4. The learned counsel for the claimant respondent No. 1 to 6, on the other hand, submitted that they have no objection in case the non-claimant appellant Company is given liberty to recover the amount of compensation paid or to be paid it to the claimant respondent Nos. 1 to 6, from the owner of the offending motor vehicle.
5. I have given my anxious and thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record of the appeal.
6. The driver of the motor cycle, there cannot be two views nor it is gainsay, was non having the license to drive two wheeler vehicle, but nevertheless license was with him to drive the light motor vehicle, technical breach of terms and conditions of the policy of the insurance issued for the offending vehicle by the non-claimant appellant Company is there but only on that basis it cannot be exonerated and rightly it was not exonerated from its liability to make the payment of the amount of compensation to the claimant respondent Nos. 1 to 6.
7. However, it is correct to contend on the part of the learned counsel for the non-claimant appellant that the non-claimant appellant Company be given liberty to recover this amount from the owner i.e., non-claimant respondent No. 8, of the motorcycle.
8. I do not find any merit and substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the non-claimant respondent No. 8, the owner of the motorcycle, that the owner thereof is not liable to make the payment of the amount of compensation; the defence taken by the owner of the offending motorcycle is concocted and manufactured one. That statement has also been given by him with the clear object and purpose to save himself from this liability to make the payment of the amount of compensation.
9. The learned counsel for the non-claimant respondent, the owner of the motorcycle, on being put by the Court, does not dispute that the owner of the motorcycle did not lodge any FIR of theft of the motorcycle. The very fact that the owner of the motorcycle did not lodge any report of theft thereof, his defence taken that somebody took out the motorcycle from him house, without his instruction, is difficult to believe what to say to accept it. He was at Bombay and the motorcycle was at his residence, in Rajasthan. In the absence of any FIR lodged against the person took out the motorcycle, reasonably it can be presumed and assumed that the driver of the offending motorcycle, had driven the motor cycle under the permission, instruction and authorization of the owner thereof. Though, it is stated in the statement by the owner of the motorcycle that he was knowing who was driving the motorcycle but it is not of any help to him for the obvious reason that after this accident took place, he would have known of the name of the person driving that motorcycle on the fateful day. The owner of the motorcycle i.e., the non- claimant respondent No. 8 has not produced any material on the record of the learned Tribunal nor it is the case before me that the motorcycle has not been got released by him from the police. In the absence of any material in this regard on the record of the case, the only inference follows therefrom is that after seizure of the motorcycle due to the accident, by the police, the owner thereof would have got it released or the police under the Court’s order would have released it in his favour.
10. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, on which there is no dispute, it is a fit case where the liberty is to be granted to the non-claimant Company to recover the amount of compensation paid or to be paid by it to the claimants from the owner of the motorcycle.
11. The appeal is disposed of in the terms that non-claimant appellant Company shall satisfy the awarded amount in favour of the claimant respondent Nos. 1 to 6, if not already satisfied and, recover the same from the non-claimant respondent No. 8, the owner of the offending motorcycle. For the purpose of such recovery, it would not be necessary for the appellant Company 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.
12. In view of this order, the stay application, filed therewith, also stands disposed of.