AFR I N THE HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAI NI TAL AO No. 56 of 2011 The United India Insurance Company Ltd.

.......….......Appellant Mr. Pankaj Purohit, Adv. for the petitioner -versus-

Smt. Roshani Devi Pundir and others ……...Respondents Mr. B.S.Negi, Advocate for the respondent With AO No. 54 of 2011 The United India Insurance Company Ltd.

.......….......Appellant Mr. Pankaj Purohit, Adv. for the petitioner -versus-

Smt. IndubalaSemwal and others ……...Respondents Mr. B.S.Negi, Advocate for the respondent With AO No. 55 of 2011 The United India Insurance Company Ltd.

.......….......Appellant Mr. Pankaj Purohit, Adv. for the petitioner -versus-

Smt. Sushma and others ……...Respondents Mr. Niranjan Bhatt, Advocate for the respondent With AO No. 57 of 2011 The United India Insurance Company Ltd.

.......….......Appellant Mr. Pankaj Purohit, Adv. for the petitioner -versus-

AtulKaushik and others ……...Respondents Mr. B.S.Negi, Advocate for the respondents With AO No. 58 of 2011 The United India Insurance Company Ltd.

.......….......Appellant Mr. Pankaj Purohit, Adv. for the petitioner -versus-

Khushal Singh Rana and others ……...Respondents Mr. B.S.Negi, Advocate for the respondent With AO No. 73 of 2011 The United India Insurance Company Ltd.

.......….......Appellant Mr. Pankaj Purohit, Adv. for the petitioner -versus-

Smt. Ranju Devi and others ……...Respondents Mr. B.S.Negi, Advocate for the respondents With AO No. 74 of 2011 The United India Insurance Company Ltd.

.......….......Appellant Mr. Pankaj Purohit, Adv. for the petitioner -versus-

Smt. Darshani Devi and others ……...Respondents Mr. Niranjan Bhatt, Advocate for the respondents With AO No. 83 of 2011 The United India Insurance Company Ltd.

.......….......Appellant Mr. Pankaj Purohit, Adv. for the petitioner -versus-

Surendra Singh Panwar and others ……...Respondents Mr. Niranjan Bhatt, Advocate for the respondents And AO No. 137 of 2011 Surendra Singh Panwar and others.

.......….......Appellant Mr. V.P.Bahuguna, Adv. for the appellant -versus-

Mahajan Singh and another ……...Respondents Date of hearing and Judgement : 27.10.2021 Sri S.K.Mishra, J.

1. In this bunch of appeal against orders, the Insurance Company has assailed the common judgment and order passed in a bunch of applications filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (herein after referred as ‘the Act’

for brevity).

2. Facts of the case at this stage are not disputed. On

03.07.2009, the bus bearing No. HP-68-0946 met with an accident resulting in death and injury of several persons. There is also allegation that about 19 persons were missing as the bus fell into a gorge of District Uttarkashi and it was sub-merged in a river (Bhaghirathi). All the applications filed by the claimants which were less than 44 in number, were allowed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Uttarkashi and different sums as compensations were awarded in favour of the claimants. The order is challenged at this stage only on one ground i.e. violation of the terms and conditions of the permit granted to the owner of the vehicle for plying of the passengers carrying bus and consequent violation of the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. At this stage, it is also not disputed that the total number of claim applications filed before the Tribunal is less than 44 and the Insurance Company covered the risk of 44 passengers.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there has been a violation of Sub- Clause (c) of Clause (i) of Sub-Section 2(a) of Section 149 of the Act. In order to properly appreciate the same, we find it appropriate to reproduce the relevant provisions:-

”149. Duty of Insurers to satisfy judgments and awards against persons insured in respect of third party risks.-

1…………………………………………………..

2. No sum shall be payable by an insurer under sub-

section (1) in respect of any judgment or award unless, before the commencement of the proceedings in which the judgment or award is given the insurer had notice throug