V. JAGANNATHAN, J.

( 1 ) MACT, Kolar while awarding compensation of Rs. 63,000/- to the 1st respondent - claimant directed the appellant - Insurance Company herein to pay the entire award amount and to recover 50% of the said amount from the driver and owner of the tempo bearing No. KA-07-2311. Aggrieved by the said direction given by the Tribunal, the appellant has approached this Court in this appeal.

( 2 ) THE facts necessary for the purpose of disposal of this appeal briefly stated are to the effect that an accident occurred on 2. 2. 1998 involving 3 vehicles. Lorry No. CAA 3748 belonging to Respondent No. 3 and insured with the appellant; tempo bearing No. KA-07-2311 driven by One Venkatesh and belonging to Respondent No. 2 and another vehicle bearing No. A. P.-03-T-9193 belonging to Respondent No. 4 and insured with Respondent No. 5 and MACT after considering the evidence placed before it came to the conclusion that the accident in question was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry No. CAA 3748 insured with the appellant and the tempo No. KA-07-2311 belonging to the 2nd respondent herein. After assessing the compensation in a sum of Rs. 63,000/-, the Tribunal on finding that the tempo No. KA-07-2311 has no insurance coverage, directed the appellant herein to pay the entire compensation amount to the 1st respondent - claimant although the liability of the appellant was fixed at 50% and the Tribunal further directed the appellant to recover the remaining 50% from the driver and owner of the tempo in question. It is this part of the operative portion of the order that is called in question by the Insurance Company in this appeal.

( 3 ) I have heard the submissions made by the learned Counsel Sri O. Mahesh for the appellant, learned Counsel Sri Ravishankar for Respondent No. 5 and the learned Counsel Sri Dildar Shiralli for the 1st respondent - claimant.

( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel Sri O. Mahesh submitted that the appeal is confined only to that part of the order of the Tribunal by which the appellant has been directed to pay the entire compensation and to recover 50% of the said amount from the driver and owner of the tempo. The contention putforward is that when the Tribunal found that the drivers of two vehicles in question were equally at fault and having apportioned the liability between the two vehicles at 50% each, the appellant being the insurer of the lorry No. CAA 3748 can be asked to pay compensation only to the extent of 50% of the award amount, but the Tribunal could not have ordered the appellant to pay the remaining 50% of the compensation amount, which was to be paid by the driver and the owner of the tempo. It is submitted that when the appellant is not at all the insurer of the tempo in question, the question of the appellant being saddled with the burden of paying 50% of the award amount in respect of the vehicle which was not insured with it and in respect of the owner who is not the insured of the appellant, is not correct and the Tribunal could not have passed such an order, which order in substance amounts to an illegal order and without jurisdiction in so far as the direction given to the appellant to pay the compensation which is to be paid by the driver and owner of the tempo. Referring to the provisions of Order-41 of Civil Procedure Code, it is submitted that the appellate Court has got the Power to set right an illegal order and therefore this Court by exercising its discretion has to set aside that part of the order of the Tribunal making the appellant to pay even the compensation which is to be paid by the owner and driver of the tempo in question.

( 5 ) ON the other hand, learned Counsel for the 1st respondent - claimant submitted that the appellant had not obtained necessary permission from the Tribunal as required under Section-170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('act' in short) and therefore appeal itself is not maintainable. Apart from this, the appellant is calling in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document