The obligation of the Insurance Company to compensate third parties involved in accidents and the right to recover the amount from the owner and driver of the vehicle, as highlighted in the National Insurance Company Ltd. & ors. Vs. Swaran Singh and ors., 2004(3)SCC, 297.

Avneesh Jhingan, J.

1. Present appeal has been preferred by the claimant against the award dated 03.10.2012 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal').

2. On 11.06.2008, Balwinder Singh, aged about 40 years, met with an accident with a truck bearing registration No.HR-46-7120 which was being driven rashly and negligently by Manoj @ Manu. As a consequence of the accident, Balwinder Singh suffered injuries and his second toe of right foot was amputated.

3. The claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act') was moved.

4. The Tribunal after considering the witnesses and evidence produced, awarded a sum of Rs.2,10,000/- as compensation. The Tribunal further held that the recovery be effected jointly and severally from the driver and the owner.

5. Aggrieved of the said award, the present appeal has been filed. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the Insurance Company.

6. Respondents No.1 and 2 (driver and the owner) were served respectively through publication but none had appeared on their behalf. They may be proceeded against ex-parte. It may be noted that the driver was ex-parte before the Tribunal. The two issues raised by learned counsel for the appellant are as under:-

(i) that the compensation of Rs.2,10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal along with interest @ 7.5.% per annum needs to be enhanced.

(ii) that the Tribunal should not have absolved the Insurance Company merely on the ground that the driver and owner of the truck had not produced the driving licence.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the injured was working as a mason. His monthly income was assessed at Rs.4,000/. As a result of the accident, he suffered a permanent disability of 25% and has been awarded Rs.1,80,000/- as compensation for disablement. Counsel further submitted that the amount under various heads needs to be enhanced. Learned counsel further contended that the owner was represented before the Tribunal. It was not for the claimant to produce the route permit or driving licence before the Tribunal.

8. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has argued that there was no proof that the injured was working as mason. Further, no permanent disability has been suffered which would effect day to day working. Counsel further argued that no driving licence or route permit was produced before the Tribunal. The Insurance Company was not liable to pay the awarded compensation.

9. First of all, the issue regarding the payment of compensation is to be decided. In the present case, the Tribunal has only proceeded on the basis that the driving licence was not produced. It would be presumed that vehicle was driven without a valid driving licence.

10. It has not been disputed by the Insurance Company that the said truck was insured with them. In such circumstances, the Tribunal should not have absolved the Insurance Company from the payment of compensation awarded. The issue, if any, was between owner/driver and the Insurance Company and for this, the claimant should not suffer.

11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. & ors. Vs. Swaran Singh and ors., 2004(3)SCC, 297, has held as under:-

“Furthermore, the insurance company with a view to avoid its liabilities is not only required to show that the conditions laid down under Section 149(2) (a) or (b) are satisfied but is further required to establish that there has been a breach on the part of the insured. By reason of the provisions contained in the 1988 Act, a more extensive remedy has been conferred upon those who have obtained judgment against the user of a vehicle and after a certificate of insurance is delivered in terms of Section 147(3) a third party has obtained a judgment against any person insured by the policy in respect of a liability requ