- (1.) AMITAVA Lala, J. This appeal has been preferred by the insurance company before this Court inspite of rejection of application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called as "act, 1988" ).
(2.) WE have already considered this issue in a judgment reported in 2006 (4) JCLR 297 (All) (LB) : 2007 (4) ADJ 101 (DB), Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Manju & Ors. , following the Supreme Court judgments that in such case no appeal shall lie unless, of course, a very specific ground of violation of policy is available under Section 149 (2) of the Act, 1988. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has contended before this Court that there is breach of policy since the vehicle is a tractor, which was insured to carry out agricultural work allowing one person to be carried and so the extra premium has been paid, but since more than one passengers were occupying, the same was not used for agricultural purpose but was coming back after unloading the bricks. We do not find any evidence to establish whether bricks were carried for the agricultural purposes or any domestic purpose. Therefore, the Court cannot proceed on the basis of surmises and conjecture. Moreover, when one person is allowed under the insurance policy and death occurred of one person, there is no cause of action available for the purpose of others to occupy the tractor at the time of incident. If such occupation seems to be negligence, if any, that is a part and parcel of consideration under Section 170 of the Act, 1988. However, such application has been rejected. Therefore, no appeal lies either from the application for rejection under Section 170 of the Act on the part of the insurance company. We do not find any violation of policy as such to prefer an appeal independently on the ground under Section 149 (2) of the Act, 1988. Therefore, the appeal cannot succeed.
(3.) LASTLY, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has contended before this Court that no right to recover the amount has been granted to the insurance company from the owner, therefore, he will be immensely sufferer if such right is not granted. According to us, the insurance company is nothing but an agent of the principal, i. e. , owner. Here the liability was fastened jointly or severally with the owner as well as insurance company. There is specific direction in the award that the insurance company will pay the compensation on behalf of the owner. Therefore, it is needless to mention that the insurance company has no right to recovery. It is entirely for the insurance company to take appropriate advice and proceed in accordance with law. However, we cannot pass any order to that extent upon going through the judgment and award itself. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed at the stage of admission.;