P. Sam Koshy, J
1. Present is an appeal filed by the Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act assailing the award dated 14/11/2011 passed by
the learned Fifth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) in Motor Accident Claim Case No.34/2011.
2. Vide the impugned award, the Tribunal in an injury case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act has awarded a compensation of Rs.74,777/-
with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of application.
3. The facts of the case in brief is that, the accident occurred on 09/05/2007 between the Truck bearing registration No.CG-06-1085 insured by the
present appellant and a Bus bearing registration No.CG-04-E-0377 owned by the respondent No.3 and driven by the respondent No.2. As a result of
the said accident, the claimant i.e. respondent No.1-Janiram Yadav, the driver of a Truck sustained certain injuries. He had preferred the claim
application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act which finally stood adjudicated upon vide the impugned award dated 14/11/2011 in Motor
Accident Claim Case No.34/2011.
4. The contention of the counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company is that, the appellant was the insurer of the Bus involved in the accident and the
driver of the said offending Bus - Rajpati Yadav did not have a valid license on the date of the accident. According to him, the license which the driver
was having got expired on 22/03/2003 and was renewed thereafter only on 22/05/2007 i.e. for the intervening period of more than 4 years, there was
no license. In the given circumstances, there appears to be a clear breach of policy condition and thus prayed for suitable modification of the award
and shifting the liability upon the owner and driver exonerating the Insurance Company of its liability.
5. Perusal of the record would show that, the amount of compensation awarded has already been ordered to be deposited by the Insurance Company
as per the order of this Court on 01/08/2012 and which by now must have also been disbursed to the claimant. What is also not in dispute is the fact of
there being a clear breach of policy condition in as much as the driver did not have a valid license on the date of accident.
6. Given the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the exclusive liability of payment of compensation fixed upon the Insurance
Company is not proper and justified and it is here that the doctrine of pay and recovery would apply and thus the order stands modified to the extent
that, the amount of compensation shall be paid by the Insurance Company with liberty to recover the same by initiating appropriate recovery
proceedings from the respondent No. 2 & 3 i.e. the driver and owner of the offending Bus.
7. The appeal stands allowed and disposed off.