- (1.) HEARD . In spite of notice sent, the owner of the vehicle, respondent No. 5, has not appeared.
(2.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company. Learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company raised only one point in this appeal. It was that the driver of the vehicle did not have a licence to carry explosives in the vehicle in terms of Rule 9(3) of the Central Motor vehicle Rules, 1993 and in the light of that position, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the amount covered by the award from the owner of the vehicle. He has, therefore, only taken exception to the fact that that right of the Insurance Company has not been saved by the judgment under appeal.
(3.) WE see considerable force in the submission of the learned Advocate General. We are, therefore, satisfied that the right of the Insurance Company to be reimbursed by the owner of the vehicle should be kept open. We, therefore, clarify that it will be open to the Insurance Company to make an application before the concerned Motor vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal claiming reimbursement of the amount from the owner of the vehicle and in that case, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal will be bound to consider that application after notice to the owner of the vehicle on merits and after giving the parties an opportunity to establish their respective cases. It is made clear that in such an enquiry, the claimants are not necessary parties and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal need not issue notices to the claimants. Subject to the above clarification, this Letters Patent Appeal is disposed of.;