- (1.) This order of mine shall dispose of two revision petitions bearing CR No.7884 of 2010, CR No.7856 of 2010 and one appeal bearing FAO No.466 of 2011 filed at the instance of the owner of the vehicle bearing No.HR-66-T-0562, who is aggrieved of the findings rendered by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter called 'MACT') whereby, the Insurance Company has been given liberty to recover amount of compensation awarded from him.
(2.) Mr. S.K. Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners (in CR-7884-2010, CR-7856-2010) and for the appellants (in FAO-466-2011), submits that the accident had taken place on 31.03.2008. The permit was valid upto 30.06.2007 but later on was renewed upto 30.06.2012, therefore, the Insurance Company cannot be permitted to seek the recovery of the amount of compensation by taking the plea that there was a breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. A copy of renewal of the permit has been annexed as Annexure P-1 which is also exhibited as Ex.RW1/A.
(3.) Mr. Vishal Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 (in both the petitions and in the appeal), submits that once, there was a breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the Insurance Company cannot be deprived of the right to recover the amount from the owner/Driver as the owner could not be indemnified for such lapse. Renewal of the permit would be effective from the date of deposit of the tax not from the date when it expired. In this content, he refers to the provisions of Sections 14 and 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') and prays for dismissal of the matter.;