- (1.) DR. B. S. Chauhan, J. This First Appeal From Order has been filed by the insured (owner of the vehicle), against the Award, dated 21-12-2005, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter called the Tribunal), wherein the Tribunal has awarded compensation to the claimants to the tune of Rs. 1,52,000. 00. Under the Award the said amount is to be paid to the claimants by the respondent No. 3, the New India Assurance Company Limited (hereinafter called the insurer), but the insurer can recover the same from the insured as at the time of the accident the vehicle was being plied by a person not having a valid driving licence.
(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that on 28-7-1998 at 9. 20 p. m. one Amar, aged about 5 years, was travelling in Jeep No. U. P. 63 A-1418 alongwith the family members. When the said vehicle reached near the village Semari, it met with an accident with another Jeep No. M. P. 17 A-3387 which was being driven rashly and negligently. Other passengers were seriously injured but the child Amar died on the spot. A criminal case was registered against the driver under Sections 279/338/427/304-A, I. P. C. THE post-mortem was conducted on the body of the deceased child Amar on 29-7-1998. His parents Shri Kant Tiwari and Smt. Bhanu Tiwari, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, filed Claim Petition No. 43 of 1999 before the Tribunal under the provisions of Section 140/166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called the Act), claiming a sum of Rs. 3,25,000. 00 as compensation. THE Insurance Company as well as the present appellant-insurer contested the claim taking large number of pleas. It was admitted by the insurer that the vehicle had been insured with it, but it contended that it was not liable to pay any compensation, for the reason that the driver of the vehicle was not having any valid driving licence. Several issues were framed by the Tribunal, including issue No. 2, as to whether vehicle was being driven by a person having a valid driving licence. The insurer and the insured led evidence on this issue. The Tribunal recorded the finding that it was being driven by the person having no valid licence. However, as the insurer was liable to pay the compensation first, it would be liable to make the payment but would be entitled to recover the same from the insured. The Tribunal awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,52,000. 00. Hence this appeal. Shri Ram Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant has raised the sole ground before us that it was the sole and exclusive responsibility of the insurer to prove that the vehicle was being driven by the person having no valid licence and the said onus/burden has not been discharged by it. Therefore, no recovery can be made from the insured. In support of his submissions a large number of judgments have been cited wherein it has been held that the onus to prove that the vehicle was being driven by the person having no valid licence lies upon the insured, e. g. , Naranva V. Kamat and Anr. v. Alfredo Antonio Doe Martins and Ors. , AIR 1985 SC 1281; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Santro Devi and Ors. , 1998 (1) JCLR 20 (SC) : AIR 1998 SC 1485 and Punam Devi and Anr. v. Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited and Ors. , AIR 2004 SC 1742.
(3.) WE have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the record. The issue involved herein is no more res integra, as it has been considered time and again by the Apex Court. Purpose of making insurance of a vehicle, mandatory, i. e. , a statutory requirement, is for the purpose that the claimants may get the compensation in time, otherwise, in case the amount is to be recovered from the owners of the vehicle, the procedure would be more cumbersome. While considering the provisions of Section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called the old Act) which was analogous to Section 149 of the Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sohan Lal Passi v. P. Sesh Reddy and Ors. , 1997 (1) JCLR 730 (SC) : (1996) 5 SCC 21, held that the whole concept of getting the vehicle insured is to provide an easy mode of getting the compensation by the claimants, otherwise in normal course they have to pursue their claim against the owner from one forum to the other, and ultimately, to execute the order of the Accident Claims Tribunal for realisation of such amount by sale of properties of the owner of the vehicle. The procedure and result of the execution of the decree is well known, therefore, the insurer and the insured are made jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimants, and it is the duty of the insurer to satisfy judgments against persons insured in respect of 3rd party risks, and if the insurer satisfies that insured had violated the terms and conditions stipulated in the insurance policy, it would be entitled to make the recovery of that amount from the insured.;