The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the insurer to indemnify the person specified in the policy and satisfy judgments and awards against the insured, as mandated by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The present Appeal has been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company against the award dated 29.7.2009 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kaushambi in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 28 of 2004 in respect of an accident which took place at about 6.00 a.m. on 14.7.2004 wherein Krishna Babu while going on cycle on main road in Village Siryawan (Chauraha) was hit by Jeep No. UP70Y-9962 resulting in grievous injuries to the said Krishna Babu and his consequent death.

The Claim Petition was filed by the claimant/respondent nos. 1 to 5, interalia, stating that the said Krishna Babu was going by cycle to sell bread etc at about 6.00 a.m. on 14.7.2004. When the said Krishna Babu reached near Siriyawan Chauraha under Police Station Charawa, District-Kaushambi, the aforesaid vehicle in question, which was coming in rash and negligent manner, hit the said Krishna Babu causing grievous injuries, and consequently the said Krishna Babu died. A case being Case Crime No. 42 of 2004 under Section 279/304A/427 I.P.C. was registered. The aforesaid vehicle in question was owned by Ramesh Chandra Kesarwani (respondent no.6 herein), and it was insured with the appellant/Insurance Company.

2. Following five Issues were framed by the Tribunal in the case:

1. Whether on 14.7.2004 at about 6.00 a.m. Jeep No. U.P.70Y/9962 which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner hit Krishna Babu who was going by cycle on Main Road in village Siriyawan (Chauraha) grievous injuries and which resulted in his death?

2. Whether the said Jeep No. U.P.70Y/9962 was not insured with United India Insurance Company Ltd.? If yes, then its effect?

3. Whether the Driver of the offending vehicle Jeep No. U.P. 70Y/9962 did not had valid D.L. on the day of the accident?

4. Whether the claimant is entitled to any relief? If he is, then how much and from whom?

5. Relief, if any?

Issue No.1, as noted above, was in regard to factum of accident on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle in question, resulting in hitting the said Krishna Babu, who sustained grievous injuries and consequently died. The said Issue was decided by the Tribunal in the affirmative and in favour of the claimant/respondent nos. 1 to 5. It was held by the Tribunal that the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle in question.

Issue No.2 was as to whether the vehicle in question was not insured with the appellant/Insurance Company, and if yes, then its effect. The Tribunal held that the vehicle in question was duly insured with the appellant/Insurance Company on the day of the accident.

Issue No.3 was as to whether the driver of the vehicle in question did not have valid driving licence on the day of the accident. The Tribunal held that on the day of the accident, the Driver of the vehicle in question did not have valid driving licence.

Issue Nos. 4 and 5 were in regard to the relief to which the claimant/respondent nos. 1 to 5 were entitled and from whom. The Tribunal held that the claimant/respondent nos. 1 to 5 were entitled to payment of compensation amounting to Rs. 3,05,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum as per the directions given in the award. It was further held that the initial payment would be made by the Insurance Company (appellant herein), and the Insurance Company would be entitled to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle (respondent no.6 herein). The Tribunal accordingly directed the appellant/Insurance Company to make payment of compensation with interest as per the directions given in the award, and further, entitled the appellant/Insurance Company to recover the said amount from the owner of the vehicle in question (respondent no.6 herein).

3. We have heard Shri Pankaj Rai, learned counsel for the appellant/ Insurance Company, and perused the record.

It is submitted by Shri Pankaj Rai that the Tribunal erred in directing that the initial payment would be made by the a