Hon'ble CHAUHAN, J.—With the consent of the parties, this case is being decided at this stage itself.

2. The Insurance Company is aggrieved by the award dated 31.08.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kishangarh (Ajmer) (hereinafter referred to as the “learned Tribunal”), whereby the learned Tribunal has directed the appellant-Company to initially pay the compensation and to subsequently recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle.

3. The only contention raised by Mr. Vinod Tyagi, the learned counsel for the appellant, is that the learned Tribunal has erred in directing the Insurance Company to pay the award amount to the claimant-respondent initially and thereafter to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. According to the learned counsel, the learned Tribunal could not have given such a direction. Moreover, once it is held that there is breach of the policy, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to make the payment.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Veyankatesh Garg, the learned counsel for the claimant-respondent, has contended that the extent of the liability of the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount and the extent of its right to recover the compensation amount is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh & Ors. ((2004) 3 SCC 297). In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had clearly opined that it is well settled that the Insurance Company is liable to satisfy the decree at the first instance and to recover the awarded amount from the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, if the learned Tribunal has passed a similar order, the order does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. Moreover, since the right of recovery has been given to the Insurance Company, it would not suffer any financial loss. After all, it can recover not only the principal amount of the compensation, but also recover the interest on the said amount from the owner of the offending vehicle. Lastly, he has contended that the Motor Vehicle Act is a social beneficial piece of legislation which protects the interest of the claimants. The claimants who have lost the bread-earner, or the claimants who have injured their bodies are entitled to a compensation so as to ameliorate their condition through monetary benefits. In case, the claimants are left to recover the amount from the owner, the beneficial purpose of the act would be diluted. For, generally it is difficult for the claimants to recover the amount from the owner. In such a scenario the claimants would run from pillar to post hoping justice would be done to him / her.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award.

6. Undoubtedly the Act is a social beneficial piece of legislation. Certainly the Act was meant to protect the interest of the claimants. With the death of the bread-earner, the claimants may find themselves thrown on the footpath and out in the cold. Even an injured person may find it extremely difficult to lead a normal life. Therefore, the world over, the law requires that monetary benefit should be paid to the victims of a vehicular accident so as to ameliorate their condition. Although it is true that neither injury, nor death can be replaced by money, but the plight of the victim can certainly be diluted by monetary compensation. Since the Act has specific purpose, the Act should be interpreted in such a way as to further the purpose behind the law.

7. In a battle between the Insurance Company and the owner, the claimants cannot be left to fend for himself. Keeping the beneficial nature of the provision in the case of Swaran Singh (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had opined that “a beneficent statute, as is well known, must receive a liberal interpretation. Furthermore, the liability of the insurer is statutory one. The liability of the insurer to satisfy the decree passed in favour of a third party is also statutory.” Relying on the case

Click Here to Read the rest of this document