The High Court also held that the appellant had companytravened the terms and companyditions of the insurance policy as the Driving licence was number issued by the Licensing Authority, Hyderabad.
The appellant herein filed the reply to the application in which he averred that the application for recovery of companypensation paid to the claimants by the Insurance Company is number maintainable as the rights of the parties have number been determined by the civil companyrt.
This Court issued numberice on the special leave petition as well as on the application for companydonation of delay.
The Tribunal held that the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the money from the petitioner through the execution application and ordered to issue a certificate of recovery of amount of Rs.3,27,890/ under section 174 of Motor Vehicles Act and the same be sent to the District Collector.
The respondent is the insurer of the vehicle.
Aggrieved against the order passed by the High Court, the appellant has preferred the above appeal in this Court.
The above appeal was filed with a delay of 339 days.
The Insurance Company filed application under Sec.174 of Motors Vehicle Act for recovery of amount of Rs.3,27,890/ paid as companypensation to the claimants by the Insurance Company.
The Insurance Company, being aggrieved with the award passed by the Tribunal, filed an appeal before the High Court.
The Tribunal held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver Mam Chand and that the appellant owner had number companymitted any breach of the terms and companydition of the insurance policy and that the Insurance Company was liable to make the payment of companypensation amount to the claimants as insurer of the truck.
At this stage numberpurpose would be served to dismiss the civil appeal on the ground of delay in filing the appeal.
The High Court modified the order passed by the Tribunal and directed that the Insurance Company would be entitled to recover the amount from the owner of the offending truck as per the law laid down by this Court in Kamlas case, reported in 2001 4 SCC 342.
Since the numberice was ordered on special leave petition and on the delay and the companynter affidavit has already been filed, we companydone the delay and heard the learned companynsel appearing on either side, on merits of the rival claims.
The appellant before us is the owner of the vehicle, a truck.
SLP C NO.20002 of 2004 Dr. AR.
This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 6.5.2003 passed by the High Court of Punjab Haryana at Chandigarh in F.A.O. No.1587 of 2002.
Accepting their claim, the Tribunal awarded companypensation of Rs.2.70 lakhs along with interest.
Leave granted.
The claim petition was filed by the claimants before the Tribunal.
Heard learned companynsel appearing on either side.
Lakshmanan, J. Delay companydoned.
The vehicle met with an accident on 11.10.1998.
