ASHA ARORA,J. - (1.) This appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereafter the Act), at the instance of an insurer, is directed against the judgment and award dated 31st March, 2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, 13th Court, Alipore, South 24-Parganas on an application under Section 166 thereof, registered as M.A.C. Case No. 79 of 2010. The tribunal found that the victim, a septuagenarian, had suffered multiple injuries in a road accident, ultimately leading to his death. It was further found that the offending vehicle (a motor cycle), which dashed the victim, was driven rashly and negligently by Rama Shankar Roy (the opposite party no.1 before the tribunal). Rama Shankar Roy also happened to be the owner of the offending vehicle. Since it was also found to be covered by a policy of insurance issued by the appellant herein, which was the opposite party no.2 before it, the tribunal directed the appellant to bear the compensation awarded by it i.e. Rs. 7,77,860/-, together with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till realization, which was to be shared by the two claimants equally. The claimants were incidentally the widow and the son of the victim.
(2.) The only point raised by Mr. Singh, learned advocate for the appellant/insurer is that the tribunal committed grave error in fastening the appellant/insurer with the liability to bear compensation payable to the claimants. According to him, Rama Shankar Roy did not have a valid driving license to drive a motor cycle, although he did possess a driving license to drive light motor vehicles. Non-possession of a driving license by Rama Shankar Roy to drive a motor cycle being not in dispute, he contended that the tribunal should have fastened Rama Shankar Roy with the liability to compensate the claimants. It has also been argued that the principles laid down in the decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh reported in 2004(3) SCC 297 would not apply here since it is not a case where Rama Shankar Roy was unaware that he did not possess a valid driving license to drive a motor cycle.
(3.) Appearing for the claimants/respondents 1 and 2 in the appeal, Mr. Mondal, learned advocate contended that having regard to a decision of recent origin of the Supreme Court in Singh Ram v. Nirmala and Ors., reported in 2018 SAR (Civil) 473 , the direction of the tribunal on the appellant/insurer to pay the compensation awarded to the claimants at the first instance does not merit any interference. He has placed the judgment in its entirety to contend that if at all it is found that Rama Shankar Roy was primarily responsible for the accident and did not have a valid driving license to drive a motor cycle, the Court may direct the appellant/insurer to pay the compensation amount to the claimants/respondents 1 and 2 and recover it from Rama Shankar Roy.;