JUDGMENT :

MANDEEP PANNU, J.

1. By this common judgment, FAO No. 2448 of 2025 and cross objections No.98 of 2025 shall stand disposed of.

2. The present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company against the award dated 21.01.2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) challenging the finding of the Tribunal whereby Insurance Company has been directed to satisfy the award, with right to recover the same from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, whereas cross objections have been filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation.

3. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has rightly held that there was a violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy by the owner/insured, thereby exonerating the Insurance Company from its liability. However, in order to protect the interest of third parties, the Tribunal directed that the Insurance Company shall satisfy the award in favour of the claimants and thereafter, recover the same from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, who were held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount. He places reliance on United India Insurance Company Limited through its Divisional Manager vs. Sujata Arora and others, 2013 (3) ACC 918.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants and respondent No.5 (owner) submits that the award passed by the Tribunal, insofar as the direction to the Insurance Company to satisfy the award at the first instance and thereafter, recover the same from the driver and owner of the offending vehicle is concerned, does not warrant any interference. It is contended that the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation and that the principle of “pay and recover” ensures prompt relief to victims and prevents delay in the dispensation of justice. The said principle further advances victim-centric justice by prioritizing the immediate needs of accident victims over contractual disputes between the insurer and the insured.

5. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

6. The Tribunal has rightly returned a finding, on the basis of the evidence available on record, that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. Significantly, no challenge has been laid by the owner or the driver in respect to the above findings of the Tribunal nor has any material been pointed out to dislodge the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal in this regard. The said finding, therefore, has attained finality. The only question which survives for consideration in the present appeal is as to whether the Tribunal was justified in directing the Insurance Company to satisfy the award at the first instance while granting it recovery rights against the driver and owner of the offending vehicle.

7. The reliance placed by the appellant–insurance company upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd.’s case (supra) is wholly misplaced and does not advance its case. A careful reading of the said decision shows that it was rendered in a materially different factual and legal context. In that case, the Tribunal had categorically fastened liability exclusively upon the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, having recorded a clear finding that the vehicle was being driven by a person holding no valid driving licence, and consequently no liability whatsoever was fastened upon the insurance company. The High Court, while exercising appellate jurisdiction, reversed the said finding and directed the insurance company to pay the compensation, which order was set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is thus evident that the issue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was confined to the correctness of fastening liability upon the insurer in a situation where the Tribunal itself had completely exonerated the insurance company. The questi