- (1.) THE present misc. appeal, filed by the United India Insurance Company Ltd. against the award dated 26.10.2009, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dausa, is highly misplaced. According to the said award, the learned Tribunal had granted a compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- to the claimants-respondents. However, while directing the Insurance Company to make the payment, it had clearly given the right of recovery to the Insurance Company against the non-claimant-respondent Nos.2 and 3, Keshar Singh and Jagdish singh respectively. Yet, despite having the right of recovery, the appellant-Company has still approached this Court.
(2.) MR. Tripurari sharma, the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, has vehemently contended that according to the claimants, three persons were riding on the motorcycle. According to the Insurance Company, since three persons were riding on the motorcycle, the motorcycle became imbalanced and fell. Consequently, Vinod expired. Moreover, since the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid licence, therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable. Furthermore, since the tractor, the offending vehicle, was being used for commercial purposes, therefore, also the Insurance Company was not liable. These three contentions as raised before this Court, were equally raised before the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal has dealt with each issue in great detail. The learned Tribunal has clearly noted that there is no evidence to show that the motorcycle had become imbalanced and had fallen. Moreover, relying on the site plan, it had concluded that the tractor had gone from the correct side of the road to the wrong side of the road and had smashed against the motorcycle. Thus, the rashness and negligence on the part of the tractor driver was writ large. Therefore, merely because three riders were riding the motorcycle would not absolve the Insurance Company from making the payment. The Tribunal has also noted the fact that Ashok Kumar Sharma (NAW-1), the witness on behalf of the Insurance Company, has rightly admitted that he was not an eye-witness of the accident. Furthermore, the Insurance Company has not produced any evidence to prove the fact that the tractor was being used for commercial purpose. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was justified in rejecting this contention. Even with regard to the driver not having a valid licence, Ashok Kumar Sharma (NAW-1) does not utter a single word about this fact. Moreover, taking its cue from the number of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the learned Tribunal has concluded that the Insurance Company has not been able to prove the fact that the owner had permitted the driver to drive the tractor knowing fully well that he did not hold a valid licence. Lastly, relying on the number of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the learned Tribunal has concluded that non-holding of a valid licence is not a violation of the fundamental terms of insurance policy. Therefore, it directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount, but simultaneously granted the Insurance Company the right to realise the said amount from the owners of the offending vehicle. Once the right of recovery was granted to the Insurance Company, this Court fails to understand why the Insurance Company has approached this Court by filing an appeal. Such a frivolous appeal should be discouraged by the Insurance Company. It would have, indeed, been better for the Insurance Company to seek the recovery of the amount from the owner.
(3.) THEREFORE, this appeal is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed.;