{"id":30532,"date":"2011-09-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-09-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-company-ltd-vs-mosomat-asha-devi-ors-on-29-september-2011"},"modified":"2018-02-25T16:37:03","modified_gmt":"2018-02-25T11:07:03","slug":"national-insurance-company-ltd-vs-mosomat-asha-devi-ors-on-29-september-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-company-ltd-vs-mosomat-asha-devi-ors-on-29-september-2011","title":{"rendered":"National Insurance Company Ltd vs Mosomat Asha Devi & Ors on 29 September, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court – Orders<\/div>\n
National Insurance Company Ltd vs Mosomat Asha Devi & Ors on 29 September, 2011<\/div>\n
                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA\n                       Miscellaneous Appeal No.407 of 2007\n             National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office at\n             Madhubani Deepak Hotel, Post Office + Police Station\n             + District\/Town Madhuabni.\n                     ...                       ...   Appellant.\n                                      Versus\n         1. Mosomat Asha Devi, Wife of Late Ganesh Das.\n         2. Sunil Kumar Das\n         3. Anil Kumar Das\n         4. Savita Kumari, Minor sons and daughter of Late Ganesh\n             Das.\n         5. Kaushalaya Devi, Wife of Bahru Das, Respondent nos.1 and\n             5 are wife and mother of the deceased respectively and\n             Respondent nos.2, 3 and 4 are Minor sons and daughter of\n             the deceased under the guardianship of their mother Asha\n             Devi and All are Residents of Village & Post office\n             Loans, Police Station Sadar Darbhanga, District\n             Darbhanga.\n         6. Pawan Kumar Jha, Son of Yogendra Jha, Village Baliya,\n             Post Office Raiyam Factory, Police Station Sakri,\n             District Madhubani.\n                     ...                       ...   Respondents.\n                        ----------------------------------\n<\/pre>\n
17.   29.9.2011.            Heard Shri Prakash Kumar, learned<\/p>\n
                  counsel for the appellant and Shri Ashutosh<\/p>\n
                  Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf<\/p>\n
                  of the respondent nos.1 to 5. Despite valid<\/p>\n
                  service of notice, the respondent no.6 has<\/p>\n
                  not entered his appearance.<\/p>\n
                              The     present      appeal     has    been<\/p>\n
                  preferred under Section 173 of the Motor<\/p>\n
                  Vehicles Act,1988 (hereinafter referred to<\/p>\n
                  as    the    Act)   against      the   judgment   dated<\/p>\n
                  14.5.2007 and award dated 30.5.2007 by the<\/p>\n
                  Fast        Track      Court      No.IV,     Madhubani<\/p>\n
                  (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal).<\/p>\n
                  The         Tribunal       has         directed     the
\n                    2<\/span><\/p>\n
appellant\/National                Insurance          Company<\/p>\n
Limited,    which       was    insurer      of     offending<\/p>\n
vehicle     i.e.       Jeep    bearing       registration<\/p>\n
No.BR-32A-0041         to   pay    compensation       amount<\/p>\n
of          Rs.1,89,900\/-                   to            the<\/p>\n
claimants\/respondent nos.1 to 5 with simple<\/p>\n
interest at the rate of 6% per annum from<\/p>\n
the date of filing of the claim petition.<\/p>\n
           Short fact of the case is that on<\/p>\n
2.5.2002, while husband of respondent no.1<\/p>\n
was   traveling        along      with    others     in   the<\/p>\n
offending Jeep at about 9.45 P.M. due to<\/p>\n
rash and negligent driving of the vehicle,<\/p>\n
the jeep turned turtle by the road side as<\/p>\n
a result of which the husband of respondent<\/p>\n
no.1, namely, Ganesh Das, who was sitting<\/p>\n
extreme right          in the middle        seat of the<\/p>\n
jeep got crushed beneath the jeep and died<\/p>\n
on the spot itself. Thereafter, an F.I.R.<\/p>\n
was   lodged       against        the    driver     of    the<\/p>\n
offending vehicle vide Madhubani Town P.S.<\/p>\n
Case No.115 of 2002 under Sections 279, 337<\/p>\n
and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code. In the<\/p>\n
first information report, the driver\u201fs name<\/p>\n
was   mentioned        as     Madan      Mishra,    son    of<\/p>\n
Jogendra       Mishra.             However,           during
\n                      3<\/span><\/p>\n
investigation, it was found that offending<\/p>\n
vehicle at the time of accident was being<\/p>\n
driven by respondent no.5, Pawan Kumar Jha,<\/p>\n
who was also owner of the said vehicle and<\/p>\n
thereafter,          charge        sheet       was       submitted<\/p>\n
against him. The claimants i.e. respondent<\/p>\n
no.1,    wife        of     the     deceased,        respondent<\/p>\n
nos.2    to     4,        son    and     daughters        of     the<\/p>\n
deceased jointly filed Claim Case vide MACT<\/p>\n
Case No.20 of 2002 under Section 166 of the<\/p>\n
M.V. Act in the court                   of Motor         Accident<\/p>\n
Claims   Tribunal\/District                Judge,         Madhubani<\/p>\n
arraying      the         driver       and     owner      of     the<\/p>\n
offending vehicle as opposite party nos.1<\/p>\n
and 2 and the appellant being insurer was<\/p>\n
impleaded as opposite party no.3.<\/p>\n
           In the case, despite valid service<\/p>\n
of    notice,        the        driver-cum-owner          of     the<\/p>\n
offending     vehicle            did    not    appear      and    as<\/p>\n
such the Claim Tribunal proceeded against<\/p>\n
him ex-parte. In the case, the insurer i.e.<\/p>\n
appellant       appeared          and     filed      a     written<\/p>\n
statement objecting to the claim petition.<\/p>\n
The   claimants           besides      producing documents<\/p>\n
examined altogether five witnesses and the<\/p>\n
claimants        before           the         Tribunal         fully
\n                    4<\/span><\/p>\n
established that the death of the deceased<\/p>\n
had occurred in a Motor Vehicle Accident<\/p>\n
due to rash and negligent driving of the<\/p>\n
offending     vehicle.          They       also    established<\/p>\n
regarding the income of the deceased and<\/p>\n
finally the Tribunal directed the insurer<\/p>\n
to    pay    the   compensation             amount       to     the<\/p>\n
claimants as indicated above.<\/p>\n
            Aggrieved           with         the        impugned<\/p>\n
judgment and award, the National Insurance<\/p>\n
Company Limited has preferred the present<\/p>\n
appeal.      The       appeal     has       been        preferred<\/p>\n
primarily on the ground that the driver,<\/p>\n
who was the owner of the offending vehicle,<\/p>\n
was   driving      the    vehicle          at     the    time      of<\/p>\n
accident without any valid license. During<\/p>\n
internal      investigation            conducted         by     the<\/p>\n
Insurance     Company,          the    purported         driving<\/p>\n
license was found as fake since the driving<\/p>\n
license, which was claimed to                       be in the<\/p>\n
name of the driver of the offending vehicle<\/p>\n
was   actually         standing       in    the    name       of   a<\/p>\n
different     person       and        as    such    the       Claim<\/p>\n
Tribunal instead of directing the owner of<\/p>\n
the offending vehicle has incorrectly and<\/p>\n
illegally      directed         the        insurer       of     the
\n                       5<\/span><\/p>\n
vehicle to make payment of the compensation<\/p>\n
amount.\n<\/p>\n
           At    the           time       of     hearing,       learned<\/p>\n
counsel      for      the        appellant              Shri    Prakash<\/p>\n
Kumar has only raised the                           issue that in<\/p>\n
case of invalid driving license the insurer<\/p>\n
was not liable to pay compensation amount.<\/p>\n
It was argued that time without number, it<\/p>\n
has   been      held       that           in    absence        of    valid<\/p>\n
driving      license            the        insurer         cannot      be<\/p>\n
directed to pay compensation, but in such<\/p>\n
case, the owner of the offending vehicle is<\/p>\n
required         to            be         directed             to     pay<\/p>\n
compensation.\n<\/p>\n
           In    support             of    his      argument,        Shri<\/p>\n
Prakash      Kumar,            learned           counsel       for    the<\/p>\n
appellant       has       heavily              relied    on     an    apex<\/p>\n
court judgment reported in 2008(3) SCC 193<\/p>\n
(Prem Kumari and others Vs. Prahlad Dev and<\/p>\n
others).        He    has        specifically              relied      on<\/p>\n
paragraph-9          of        the    judgment.           For       proper<\/p>\n
appreciation,             it    would          be   appropriate        to<\/p>\n
quote   paragraph-9                  of    Prem     Kumari\u201fs         case<\/p>\n
(Supra), which is as follow :<\/p>\n
           “9. The effect and implication<\/p>\n
           of the principles laid down in
\n                    6<\/span><\/p>\n
           Swaran        Singh          case     has        been<\/p>\n
           considered          and        explained           by<\/p>\n
           one      of         us        (Dr.          Arijit<\/p>\n
           Pasayat,J.)                  in          National<\/p>\n
           Insurance          Co.       Ltd.     v.       Laxmi<\/p>\n
           Narain        Dhut.          The<\/a>      following<\/p>\n
           conclusions             in     para       38     are<\/p>\n
           relevant : (Laxmi Narain case,<\/p>\n
           SCC p.719):\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           \"38.     In       view       of     the        above\n\nanalysis     the            following          situations\n\nemerge :\n\n           1. The           decision           in      Swaran\n\n              Singh            case             has          no\n\n<\/pre>\n
              application to cases other<\/p>\n
              than third-party risks.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           2. Where                originally               the\n\n              licence          was       a     fake       one,\n\n              renewal          cannot           cure        the\n\n              inherent fatality.\n\n           3. In        case        of         third-party\n\n              risks          the    insurer           has    to\n\n              indemnify            the       amount,        and\n\n              if       so    advised,          to    recover\n\n<\/pre>\n
              the same from the insured.<\/p>\n
\n\n           4. The        concept          of     purposive\n                   7<\/span>\n\n\n\n\n               interpretation               has        no\n\n               application             to         cases\n\n<\/pre>\n
               relatable to Section 149 of<\/p>\n
               the Act.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           Relying     on    aforesaid       judgment, it<\/p>\n
was    submitted      that   in    the      instant     case,<\/p>\n
driver    of   the    offending        vehicle      was     non<\/p>\n
else, but the owner himself                  and in such<\/p>\n
situation, it was the owner, who was liable<\/p>\n
to be directed to pay compensation not the<\/p>\n
insurer. On this ground alone, it has been<\/p>\n
prayed to set aside the impugned judgment<\/p>\n
and award.\n<\/p>\n
           Shri Ashutosh Kuamr has appeared on<\/p>\n
behalf of respondent nos.1 to 5\/claimants.<\/p>\n
Even     before    this      Court,      the      respondent<\/p>\n
no.6\/driver-cum-owner             of     the       offending<\/p>\n
vehicle,    despite       valid    service        of   notice<\/p>\n
has not appeared and participated in the<\/p>\n
present proceeding. Learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
claimant has argued that onus was on the<\/p>\n
insurer to establish the fact that driver<\/p>\n
of the offending vehicle at                  the time of<\/p>\n
accident was not having any valid license.<\/p>\n
Before the tribunal, the insurer has not<\/p>\n
produced any evidence to establish that the
\n                     8<\/span><\/p>\n
driver was not having license to drive the<\/p>\n
vehicle. It was argued that except filing<\/p>\n
written statement before the tribunal and<\/p>\n
investigation report, which was internally<\/p>\n
got conducted by the Insurance Company, the<\/p>\n
insurer has produced no cogent evidence in<\/p>\n
support of its claim. In                    absence of any<\/p>\n
material,     the       learned      claim    tribunal     has<\/p>\n
rightly allowed the claim case since the<\/p>\n
appellant was the insurer of the offending<\/p>\n
vehicle and at the time of accident, the<\/p>\n
offending vehicle was under the cover of<\/p>\n
insurance policy.\n<\/p>\n
            Besides hearing learned counsel for<\/p>\n
the    parties,         I    have     also    perused      the<\/p>\n
materials     available         on    record.      Since   the<\/p>\n
appellant         has       challenged       the     impugned<\/p>\n
judgment and award only on the ground that<\/p>\n
driver      was   not       having    any    valid    driving<\/p>\n
license, there is no requirement to discuss<\/p>\n
other facts in detail. It is not in dispute<\/p>\n
that at the time of accident, the offending<\/p>\n
vehicle was under insurance cover of the<\/p>\n
appellant and the appellant was the insurer<\/p>\n
of    the    vehicle.         There     is    plethora      of<\/p>\n
judgment on the point that for taking the
\n                       9<\/span><\/p>\n
defence under Section 149(2) of the M.V.<\/p>\n
Act, the insurer is required to establish<\/p>\n
that the driver at the time of accident was<\/p>\n
not having any valid driving license. If<\/p>\n
the    insurer        is    taking       such       plea,    it   is<\/p>\n
mandatory for the insurer to establish such<\/p>\n
plea     by     cogent          and     reliable        evidence.<\/p>\n
Before the claim tribunal in the present<\/p>\n
case, the insurer has not at all bothered<\/p>\n
to    produce        or    lead       any    evidence       on    the<\/p>\n
point of invalid or no driving license in<\/p>\n
favour     of    the        driver          of    the    offending<\/p>\n
vehicle.\n<\/p>\n
           On perusal of the written statement<\/p>\n
also, it is evident that no such plea was<\/p>\n
specifically              taken        by         the     insurer.<\/p>\n
Regarding the plea of driving license, a<\/p>\n
vague averment was made in paragraph-11 of<\/p>\n
the written statement of insurer. For just<\/p>\n
decision        in        the    matter,          it    would      be<\/p>\n
appropriate          to    quote       the       said   paragraph,<\/p>\n
which is as follows :\n<\/p>\n
          “11.        That        driving           license,<\/p>\n
          fitness                            certificate,<\/p>\n
          registration                 documents,         age<\/p>\n
          certificate             of     the       deceased,
\n                   10<\/span><\/p>\n
          tax     token,          insurance          Police<\/p>\n
          have        not     furnished         on      the<\/p>\n
          record which is encumbrant upon<\/p>\n
          claimants          as     well       as      O.P.<\/p>\n
          owner, be directed to produce<\/p>\n
          and prove in this case failing<\/p>\n
          which       it     should      be     presumed<\/p>\n
          that         there        is         statutory<\/p>\n
          violation of the condition of<\/p>\n
          the     policy,           if         any,      as<\/p>\n
          contemplated            u\/s    149    of     M.V.<\/p>\n
          Act and this O.P. will not as<\/p>\n
          such stand in law to indemnify<\/p>\n
          the          awarded           amount          of<\/p>\n
          compensation,            if    at      all     in<\/p>\n
          future.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          It     is     further         evident       that    the<\/p>\n
insurer    has        not    produced          any     evidence.<\/p>\n
Regarding the plea of invalid\/fake driving<\/p>\n
license the insurer has brought on record a<\/p>\n
report of verification of driving license<\/p>\n
(Ext.A)    prepared          by    one     Shri        Dewashish<\/p>\n
Gupta, advocate, which was addressed to the<\/p>\n
Branch Manager, National Insurance Company<\/p>\n
Ltd.,   Brahmpura           Branch,     Murshidabad          along<\/p>\n
with the application for information. The
\n                       11<\/span><\/p>\n
insurer     had       claimed        before       the    tribunal<\/p>\n
that     Driving           License        No.MSD\/136\/90        was<\/p>\n
issued in the name of one Shri Ashok Kumar<\/p>\n
Rudra. However, on the record, there was a<\/p>\n
photo copy of driving license vide No.136<\/p>\n
of   1990    issued          in    the    name    of    one    Shri<\/p>\n
Prakash Kumar Jha, who was driver and owner<\/p>\n
of the offending vehicle. The photo copy of<\/p>\n
the driving license in the                       name of Shri<\/p>\n
Prakash      Kumar          Jha    was     issued       from    the<\/p>\n
District Transport Officer, Samastipur.<\/p>\n
            In view of aforesaid material, it<\/p>\n
is difficult to comprehend as to how it can<\/p>\n
be     presumed            that     the     driver       of     the<\/p>\n
offending vehicle was not having any valid<\/p>\n
driving      license.              Apparently,          in     such<\/p>\n
situation, the onus was completely on the<\/p>\n
insurer     to    produce          reliable       evidence     for<\/p>\n
establishing           that        driver        was     carrying<\/p>\n
either      no    license           or    was     having       fake<\/p>\n
driving license. On the basis of materials<\/p>\n
available on record, the court is of the<\/p>\n
opinion     that       the        insurer    had       completely<\/p>\n
failed       to            establish        the         plea    of<\/p>\n
invalid\/fake driving license.<\/p>\n
            In    a    case       reported       in    2004(3)SCC
\n                   12<\/span><\/p>\n
297   (National        Insurance            Company         Ltd.   Vs.<\/p>\n
Swaran Singh), it has been held that for<\/p>\n
establishing         breach           of    policy          condition<\/p>\n
i.e. dis-qualification of the driver onus<\/p>\n
would be on the insurer. At this stage, it<\/p>\n
is    appropriate       to       quote       paragraph-110          of<\/p>\n
Swaran Singh\u201fs case (Supra), which is as<\/p>\n
follows :\n<\/p>\n
          “110.        The           summary          of     our<\/p>\n
          findings to the various issues<\/p>\n
          as raised in these petitions is<\/p>\n
          as follows :<\/p>\n
\n\n          (i)   Chapter              XI    of     the      Motor\n\n          Vehicles          Act,          1988       providing\n\n          compulsory                  insurance               of\n\n          vehicles          against              third-party\n\n          risks        is        a     social         welfare\n\n<\/pre>\n
          legislation to extend relief by<\/p>\n
          compensation                to     victims          of<\/p>\n
          accidents          caused             by    use     of<\/p>\n
          motor vehicles. The provisions<\/p>\n
          of         compulsory                      insurance<\/p>\n
          coverage          of       all    vehicles         are<\/p>\n
          with this paramount object and<\/p>\n
          the provisions of the Act have<\/p>\n
          to    be     so        interpreted            as    to
\n         13<\/span><\/p>\n
effectuate the said object.<\/p>\n
(ii) An insurer is entitled to<\/p>\n
raise      a      defence         in    a     claim<\/p>\n
petition          filed      under          Section<\/p>\n
163-A      or     Section         166       of    the<\/p>\n
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, inter<\/p>\n
alia,        in     terms         of        Section<\/p>\n
149(2)(a)(ii) of the said Act.<\/p>\n
(iii)      The      breach         of        policy<\/p>\n
condition e.g. disqualification<\/p>\n
of    the         driver          or     invalid<\/p>\n
driving licence of the driver,<\/p>\n
as    contained           in       sub-section<\/p>\n
(2)(a)(ii) of Section 149, has<\/p>\n
to    be       proved        to    have          been<\/p>\n
committed          by   the       insured        for<\/p>\n
avoiding           liability            by        the<\/p>\n
insurer. Mere absence of, fake<\/p>\n
or invalid driving licence or<\/p>\n
disqualification of the driver<\/p>\n
for     driving         at     the       relevant<\/p>\n
time,      are      not      in        themselves<\/p>\n
defences           available            to        the<\/p>\n
insurer           against         either          the<\/p>\n
insured or the third parties.<\/p>\n
To avoid its liability towards
\n         14<\/span><\/p>\n
the insured, the insurer has to<\/p>\n
prove    that        the       insured     was<\/p>\n
guilty of negligence and failed<\/p>\n
to exercise reasonable care in<\/p>\n
the    matter       of    fulfilling      the<\/p>\n
condition           of         the      policy<\/p>\n
regarding use of vehicles by a<\/p>\n
duly licensed driver or one who<\/p>\n
was not disqualified to drive<\/p>\n
at the relevant time.\n<\/p>\n
(iv)         insurance           companies,<\/p>\n
however, with a view to avoid<\/p>\n
their liability must not only<\/p>\n
establish            the             available<\/p>\n
defence(s) raised in the said<\/p>\n
proceedings          but        must      also<\/p>\n
establish ‘breach’ on the part<\/p>\n
of the owner of the vehicle;<\/p>\n
the    burden       of    proof      wherefor<\/p>\n
would be on them.\n<\/p>\n
(v) The court cannot lay down<\/p>\n
any criteria as to how the said<\/p>\n
burden       would        be    discharged,<\/p>\n
inasmuch       as        the    same     would<\/p>\n
depend       upon        the     facts     and<\/p>\n
circumstances of each case.
\n         15<\/span><\/p>\n
(vi) Even where the insurer is<\/p>\n
able    to     prove       breach        on   the<\/p>\n
part of the insured concerning<\/p>\n
the policy condition regarding<\/p>\n
holding of a valid licence by<\/p>\n
the driver or his qualification<\/p>\n
to    drive        during      the    relevant<\/p>\n
period, the insurer would not<\/p>\n
be      allowed           to      avoid       its<\/p>\n
liability          towards      the      insured<\/p>\n
unless        the     said        breach       or<\/p>\n
breaches       on     the      condition       of<\/p>\n
driving        licence            is\/are        so<\/p>\n
fundamental          as     are      found     to<\/p>\n
have contributed to the cause<\/p>\n
of the accident. The Tribunals<\/p>\n
in     interpreting             the       policy<\/p>\n
conditions          would       apply         \u201ethe<\/p>\n
rule of main purpose\u201f and the<\/p>\n
concept of \u201efundamental breach\u201f<\/p>\n
to allow defences available to<\/p>\n
the      insurer           under         Section<\/p>\n
149(2) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
(vii)        The     question,           as    to\n\nwhether       the     owner        has     taken\n\n<\/pre>\n
reasonable care to find out as
\n        16<\/span><\/p>\n
to whether the driving licence<\/p>\n
produced by the driver (a fake<\/p>\n
one    or    otherwise),            does    not<\/p>\n
fulfil the requirements of law<\/p>\n
or     not        will       have     to        be<\/p>\n
determined in each case.\n<\/p>\n
(viii) If a vehicle at the time<\/p>\n
of    accident         was    driven       by    a<\/p>\n
person       having          a      learner\u201fs<\/p>\n
licence,               the          insurance<\/p>\n
companies         would      be    liable       to<\/p>\n
satisfy the decree.\n<\/p>\n
(ix)        The        Claims        Tribunal\n\nconstituted         under        Section    165\n\nread     with          Section       168        is\n\nempowered         to      adjudicate        all\n\nclaims       in        respect       of     the\n\n<\/pre>\n
accidents involving death or of<\/p>\n
bodily       injury       or      damage        to<\/p>\n
property of third party arising<\/p>\n
in use of motor vehicle. The<\/p>\n
said power of the Tribunal is<\/p>\n
not    restricted         to      decide    the<\/p>\n
claims        inter          se       between<\/p>\n
claimant      or       claimants      on    one<\/p>\n
side and insured, insurer and
\n         17<\/span><\/p>\n
driver       on    the     other.       In     the<\/p>\n
course        of        adjudicating           the<\/p>\n
claim for compensation and to<\/p>\n
decide        the        availability           of<\/p>\n
defence       or        defences        to     the<\/p>\n
insurer,           the         Tribunal        has<\/p>\n
necessarily              the      power        and<\/p>\n
jurisdiction to decide disputes<\/p>\n
inter    se       between        the    insurer<\/p>\n
and the insured. The decision<\/p>\n
rendered          on     the     claims        and<\/p>\n
disputes inter se between the<\/p>\n
insurer       and        insured        in     the<\/p>\n
course of adjudication of claim<\/p>\n
for      compensation                  by      the<\/p>\n
claimants          and    the     award       made<\/p>\n
thereon        is        enforceable           and<\/p>\n
executable in the same manner<\/p>\n
as provided in Section 174 of<\/p>\n
the     Act       for     enforcement          and<\/p>\n
execution          of      the        award     in<\/p>\n
favour of the claimants.<\/p>\n
\n\n(x)   Where        on     adjudication          of\n\nthe   claim        under        the    Act     the\n\nTribunal               arrives          at       a\n\n<\/pre>\n
conclusion that the insurer has
\n         18<\/span><\/p>\n
satisfactorily               proved          its<\/p>\n
defence in accordance with the<\/p>\n
provisions         of     Section      149(2)<\/p>\n
read with sub-section (7), as<\/p>\n
interpreted          by        this        Court<\/p>\n
above, the Tribunal can direct<\/p>\n
that the insurer is liable to<\/p>\n
be    reimbursed        by     the    insured<\/p>\n
for the compensation and other<\/p>\n
amounts      which        it     has        been<\/p>\n
compelled to pay to the third<\/p>\n
party under the award of the<\/p>\n
Tribunal. Such determination of<\/p>\n
claim by the Tribunal will be<\/p>\n
enforceable and the money found<\/p>\n
due    to    the    insurer          from    the<\/p>\n
insured will be recoverable on<\/p>\n
a     certificate         issued      by     the<\/p>\n
Tribunal      to    the      Collector       in<\/p>\n
the same manner under Section<\/p>\n
174 of the Act as arrears of<\/p>\n
land    revenue.        The     certificate<\/p>\n
will be issued for the recovery<\/p>\n
as arrears of land revenue only<\/p>\n
if, as required by sub-section<\/p>\n
(3) of Section 168 of the Act
\n         19<\/span><\/p>\n
the    insured          fails       to    deposit<\/p>\n
the amount awarded in favour of<\/p>\n
the insurer within thirty days<\/p>\n
from the date of announcement<\/p>\n
of the award by the Tribunal.<\/p>\n
(xi)    The       provisions         contained<\/p>\n
in     sub-section            (4)    with       the<\/p>\n
proviso       thereunder             and       sub-<\/p>\n
section (5) which are intended<\/p>\n
to            cover                  specified<\/p>\n
contingencies mentioned therein<\/p>\n
to     enable           the     insurer         to<\/p>\n
recover the amount paid under<\/p>\n
the    contract          of    insurance        on<\/p>\n
behalf of the insured can be<\/p>\n
taken        recourse          to        by    the<\/p>\n
Tribunal          and    be     extended         to<\/p>\n
claims       and        defences         of    the<\/p>\n
insurer against the insured by<\/p>\n
relegating them to the remedy<\/p>\n
before regular court in cases<\/p>\n
where        on     given           facts      and<\/p>\n
circumstances            adjudication            of<\/p>\n
their     claims         inter       se       might<\/p>\n
delay the adjudication of the<\/p>\n
claims of the victims.”\n<\/p>\n
                              20<\/span><\/p>\n
                    In view of aforesaid proposition of<\/p>\n
        law,     it    was        duty    on     the    part     of   the<\/p>\n
        insurer\/appellant            to    establish       the    breach<\/p>\n
        by    the     insured\/driver            and     owner    of   the<\/p>\n
        offending vehicle in the present case and<\/p>\n
        since there were no evidence on record to<\/p>\n
        raise finger in respect of driving license<\/p>\n
        there is no reason to interfere with the<\/p>\n
        impugned judgment and award.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                    In the facts and circumstances of<\/p>\n
        the    present       case,        the    court    is     of   the<\/p>\n
        opinion that the appellant being insurer of<\/p>\n
        the offending vehicle cannot be exonerated<\/p>\n
        from     the    liability          of     the    compensation<\/p>\n
        amount,       which       has     been       directed    by   the<\/p>\n
        Claim Tribunal and as such I do not find<\/p>\n
        any material to interfere with the impugned<\/p>\n
        judgment       and        award        and     appeal     stands<\/p>\n
        dismissed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    In view of dismissal of the appeal,<\/p>\n
        the    statutory           amount        deposited       by   the<\/p>\n
        appellant may be remitted back to the court<\/p>\n
        below.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
N.H.\/                         ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court – Orders National Insurance Company Ltd vs Mosomat Asha Devi & Ors on 29 September, 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Appeal No.407 of 2007 National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office at Madhubani Deepak Hotel, Post Office + Police Station + District\/Town Madhuabni. … … Appellant. Versus 1. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-30532","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-patna-high-court-orders"],"yoast_head":"\nNational Insurance Company Ltd vs Mosomat Asha Devi & Ors on 29 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-company-ltd-vs-mosomat-asha-devi-ors-on-29-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"National Insurance Company Ltd vs Mosomat Asha Devi & Ors on 29 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-company-ltd-vs-mosomat-asha-devi-ors-on-29-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-25T11:07:03+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-insurance-company-ltd-vs-mosomat-asha-devi-ors-on-29-september-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-insurance-company-ltd-vs-mosomat-asha-devi-ors-on-29-september-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"National Insurance Company Ltd vs Mosomat Asha Devi & Ors on 29 September, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-25T11:07:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-insurance-company-ltd-vs-mosomat-asha-devi-ors-on-29-september-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2737,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Patna High Court - Orders\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-insurance-company-ltd-vs-mosomat-asha-devi-ors-on-29-september-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-insurance-company-ltd-vs-mosomat-asha-devi-ors-on-29-september-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-insurance-company-ltd-vs-mosomat-asha-devi-ors-on-29-september-2011\",\"name\":\"National Insurance Company Ltd vs Mosomat Asha Devi & Ors on 29 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-25T11:07:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-insurance-company-ltd-vs-mosomat-asha-devi-ors-on-29-september-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-insurance-company-ltd-vs-mosomat-asha-devi-ors-on-29-september-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-insurance-company-ltd-vs-mosomat-asha-devi-ors-on-29-september-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"National Insurance Company Ltd vs Mosomat Asha Devi & Ors on 29 September, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"National Insurance Company Ltd vs Mosomat Asha Devi & Ors on 29 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-company-ltd-vs-mosomat-asha-devi-ors-on-29-september-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"National Insurance Company Ltd vs Mosomat Asha Devi & Ors on 29 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-company-ltd-vs-mosomat-asha-devi-ors-on-29-september-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-25T11:07:03+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-company-ltd-vs-mosomat-asha-devi-ors-on-29-september-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-company-ltd-vs-mosomat-asha-devi-ors-on-29-september-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"National Insurance Company Ltd vs Mosomat Asha Devi & Ors on 29 September, 2011","datePublished":"2011-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-25T11:07:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-company-ltd-vs-mosomat-asha-devi-ors-on-29-september-2011"},"wordCount":2737,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Patna High Court - Orders"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-company-ltd-vs-mosomat-asha-devi-ors-on-29-september-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-company-ltd-vs-mosomat-asha-devi-ors-on-29-september-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-company-ltd-vs-mosomat-asha-devi-ors-on-29-september-2011","name":"National Insurance Company Ltd vs Mosomat Asha Devi & Ors on 29 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-25T11:07:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-company-ltd-vs-mosomat-asha-devi-ors-on-29-september-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-company-ltd-vs-mosomat-asha-devi-ors-on-29-september-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-company-ltd-vs-mosomat-asha-devi-ors-on-29-september-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"National Insurance Company Ltd vs Mosomat Asha Devi & Ors on 29 September, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30532","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=30532"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30532\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=30532"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=30532"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=30532"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}