Bajal Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Its Legal Manager Vs Rekha Devi And Ors.

of notice nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondents and that is why the matter was adjourned and it was made clear in that order that if on the next date they will not appear, this appeal will be heard in absence of the respondents.

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

¶22

This appeal has been preferred being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Award dated 29.06.2016 passed by the learned District Judge-X-cum- Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhanbad in Title (M.V.) Claim Case No.17 of 2015.

¶23

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the said

¶24

-1- M.A. No.148 of 2017

¶25

claim case was instituted stating therein that on 16.11.2014 at about 7 A.M when the deceased was standing near a tea shop to have tea on Jharia-Sindri Main Road, Near Nunudih Kali Mandir, P.S. Sudamdih (Jorapokhar), District Dhanbad, all of a sudden a Auto Rickshaw bearing registration No.JH-10AN-9486 being driven by its driver rashly and negligently dashed the deceased Basudev Chaudhary, due to which he received grievous road accidental injuries and Basudev Choudhary succumbed to the injuries on the same day. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Auto Rickshaw bearing registration No.JH-10AN-9486, thereafter Jorapokhar (Sudamdih) Police has registered a case vide Jorapokhar (Sudamdih) P.S. Case No.377 of 2017, under section 279, 304-A of the IPC. On completion of investigation, the charge sheet has been submitted. Based on these facts, the claim has been made by the claimants.

¶26

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that a permit was demanded from the vehicle in question which was not produced and the issue with regard to the permit was framed as issue no.6. Since issue no.4 and 6 were intermingled both the issues decided by the learned Tribunal and the learned Tribunal has come to the finding that when the permit was not produced by the respondent no.1 the owner of the vehicle and in view of that, the insurance company is entitled to recover the same from the owner and that recovery from the owner has not been ordered by the learned Tribunal in the said Award. He submits that insurance company will satisfy the Award and the direction may kindly be issued to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle.

¶27

In view of above submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, the Court is gone through the Award of the learned court and -2- M.A. No.148 of 2017

¶28

finds that the said issue was framed as Issue no.6 which was decided along with issue nos.4 and 6 and the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the permit was not produced in spite of the demand and as such the said issue was decided against the owner of the vehicle. Once the demand was made by the insurance company, it was incumbent upon the owner to produce the permit which was not done and finding to that effect is already there. As such, the aforesaid Award dated 29.06.2016 is modified to the effect that the appellant/ insurance company will satisfy the Award within four weeks and after satisfying the Award, the insurance company will be entitled to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle.

¶29