# The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Lko v. Smt. Saroj & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 9 ILRA 171
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-11-20
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 890 of 2017
- **Bench:** Rakesh Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/the-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-lko-v-smt-saroj-ors-45345
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Civil Law -Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 -
Section 103 - U.P. State Road Transport
Services (Development) Rules, 1974 - Permit
issued to State Transport Undertaking -
Requirement of mentioning the bus numbers -
Held, There is no statutory requirement of
mentioning the bus number in a permit issued
to the State Transport Undertaking. (Para 14)

B. Civil Law -Motor Accident Claim -
Doctrine of estoppels - Plea of violation of
insurance policy - Not raised before the court
below - Held, appellant is now estopped from
contending that by attaching his bus with the
Corporation, the insured has violated the terms
and conditions of the policy and it was not liable
to indemnify the insured. (Para 22, 23 and 24)

Appeal dismissed. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-

## Text

9 All. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Lko Vs. Smt. Saroj & Ors.
171
5,23,600/-. The increased amount shall
carry interest @ 7% per annum from the
date of claim petition till the time of its
actual payment.

24. The impugned judgment and
award stands modified to the above extent.
----------
(2020)09ILR A171
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 20.11.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAKESH SRIVASTAVA, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 890 of 2017

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Lko
 ...Appellant
Versus
Smt. Saroj & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Vashu Deo Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava, Chandra Bhanu
Singh, Hari Shanker Tewari, Mukesh Singh

A. Civil Law -Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 -
Section 103 - U.P. State Road Transport
Services (Development) Rules, 1974 - Permit
issued to State Transport Undertaking -
Requirement of mentioning the bus numbers -
Held, There is no statutory requirement of
mentioning the bus number in a permit issued
to the State Transport Undertaking. (Para 14)

B. Civil Law -Motor Accident Claim -
Doctrine of estoppels - Plea of violation of
insurance policy - Not raised before the court
below - Held, appellant is now estopped from
contending that by attaching his bus with the
Corporation, the insured has violated the terms
and conditions of the policy and it was not liable
to indemnify the insured. (Para 22, 23 and 24)

Appeal dismissed. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-
1.
The
Oriental
Insurance
Co.
Ltd.
Vs
U.P.S.R.T.C. & ors., 2015 (33) LCD 2814
2. U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs Kulsum; (2011) 8 SCC 142
(Delivered by Hon'ble Rakesh Srivastava, J.)

1. This first appeal from order has
been filed by the Insurer under Section 173
of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short
'the Act') against the judgment and award
dated 23.08.2017 passed by the Motor
Accident
Claims
Tribunal/ Additional
District Judge, Court No. 2, Faizabad in
MACP No. 252 of 2015, Smt. Saroj and
others v. Laxman Prasad Verma and others.

2. On 03.08.2015, Vinod Kumar was
returning to his village Doshpur from
Faizabad on his bicycle. At about 9 pm, a
bus bearing No. UP-36T-1103, which was
being driven rashly and negligently, came
from behind and hit his bicycle. As a result
of the said collision Vinod Kumar suffered
serious injuries in his head and body. He
was taken to District Hospital, Faizabad
from where he was referred to Trauma
Centre, Lucknow. On 05.08.2015, he died
while undergoing treatment at Lucknow. A
First Information Report was lodged at
police station Pura Kalandar, District
Faizabad. Smt. Saroj, widow of late Vinod
Kumar, along with her daughters Ruchi
Verma and Kamimi Verma and son Anuj,
filed a claim petition under Section 166 of
the Act, claiming compensation of Rs.
16,35,000/- for the unfortunate death of
Vinod Kumar in the road accident.

3. Laxman Prasad Verma, the owner
of the offending vehicle, the respondent no.
5 herein, in his written statement admitted
that he was the registered owner of the
offending bus. However, he denied the
accident and the involvement of the bus in
172 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
question. He stated that Hemraj Verma, the
driver of the bus, had a valid license. At the
time of accident the offending bus was
insured with the Appellant and was plying
under an Agreement of Contract dated
04.06.2015 with the Uttar Pradesh State
Road Transport Corporation (for short ''the
Corporation'),
a
State
transport
undertaking. It was also stated that the bus
was plying on the route as per the permit
granted by the Regional Transport Officer
in favour of the Corporation. The driver of
the vehicle, respondent no. 2 herein, was
proceeded
against
ex-parte
since
he
remained absent despite service of notice
upon him in the proceeding.

4. The Appellant also filed its written
statement denying the averments made in
the claim petition. A general defence was
taken that at the time of the accident the
driver of the bus did not have an effective
driving license and that the bus in question
was plying on the road without a valid
permit and fitness, in violation of the terms
of the policy and as such the Appellant was
not liable to indemnify the owner.

5. The Regional Manager of the
Corporation (respondent no. 4 herein), in
his
written
statement,
admitted
the
accident. However, he alleged negligence
on the part of the deceased. It was admitted
that the offending vehicle was running on
contract with the Corporation for the period
04.06.2015 to 18.05.2025. It was, however,
stated that as per the terms of the contract,
if any accident took place during the
subsistence
of
the
contract,
the
responsibility to pay the compensation was
that of the owner and the insurance
company.

6. The Tribunal framed appropriate
issues regarding negligence of the driver of
the bus, violation of the terms of the policy,
entitlement
of
the
claimants
to
compensation
and
the
quantum
of
compensation. The claimants examined
Smt. Saroj as PW 1 and Ram Ashish Verma
as PW 2. No oral evidence was led on
behalf of the owner of the bus, the insurer
and the Corporation. The contesting parties
filed documentary evidence in support of
their respective cases. The respondent no. 4
filed the registration certificate, insurance
policy, permit dated 07.01.2009, office
order dated 04.06.2015 and the letter dated
30.08.2015 of the Appellant.

7. On an appraisal of oral and
documentary evidence on record, the
Tribunal, through the impugned award,
held that the accident took place due to rash
and negligent driving on the part of driver
of the bus Hem Raj, as a result of which the
deceased suffered grievous injuries and
died. The offending vehicle was insured
with the Appellant. The Tribunal held that
that there was no violation of the insurance
policy. The Tribunal, thereafter, on the
basis of the post mortem report assessed the
age of the deceased between 46 to 50 years.
In the absence of convincing evidence, the
Tribunal assessed the annual income of the
deceased at Rs. 54,000/- and applying the
multiplier of 13, awarded the compensation
of Rs. 4,91,122/- along with interest @ 7%
from the date of application till the time of
its actual payment.

8. Feeling aggrieved, the Appellant
has filed this appeal. During the hearing of
this appeal, Sri Vasudeo Mishra, learned
counsel for the Appellant has made only
two submissions:

(a)
That
the
permit
dated
07.01.2009 related to only 100 buses of
Corporation for the route Sultanpur-
9 All. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Lko Vs. Smt. Saroj & Ors.
173
Kurebhar-Khajurahat-Bikhapur-Faizabad
but it did not contain the registration
number of the bus in question and as such it
could not be established that the offending
bus was one of the 100 buses authorized to
ply under the said permit; and

(b) That the insurer had attached
his bus with the Corporation in violation of
the insurance policy and as such the
Appellant was absolved of his liability to
indemnify the insured.

9. No one has appeared on behalf of the
respondent no. 5 and 6, though the name of
Sri Hari Shanker Tewari is printed in the
cause list. Sri Mukesh Singh, the learned
counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4 has
supported the impugned award. Sri Akhilesh
Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the
respondent no. 7 has submitted that there is
no statutory requirement of mentioning the
bus numbers in the permit issued to the
Corporation under Section 103 of the Act. He
has further submitted that under sub-section
(1A) of Section 103 of the Act, as applicable
in the State of Uttar Pradesh, the Corporation
is empowered to hire any vehicle to ply on
the route for which permit has been obtained
by it from the Transport Authority.

10. Section 66 of the Act emphasizes
the necessity for permits. As per Section 66
of the Act a vehicle defined under Section
2(28) of the Act can only be used as a
"transport
vehicle"
as
defined
under
Section 2(47) of the Act, only if it has a
"permit" as defined under Section 2(31) of
the Act. Sub-section (3) of Section 66 of
the Act carves out certain exceptions to
sub-section (1). Relevant portion of Section
66 of the Act reads as under:

"66. Necessity for permits.--(1)
No owner of a motor vehicle shall use or
permit the use of the vehicle as a transport
vehicle in any public place whether or not
such vehicle is actually carrying any
passengers or goods save in accordance
with the conditions of a permit granted or
countersigned by a Regional or State
Transport Authority or any prescribed
authority authorising him the use of the
vehicle in that place in the manner in which
the vehicle is being used."

11. The provision for grant of permit
to the State Transport undertakings, in
pursuance of an approved Scheme is
provided in Section 103 of the Act. Subsection (1) of Section 103 of the Act being
relevant is reproduced as under:-

"103. Issue of permits to State
transport undertakings.-- (1) Where, in
pursuance of an approved scheme, any State
transport undertaking applies in such manner
as may be prescribed by the State Government
in this behalf for a stage carriage permit or a
goods carriage permit or a contract carriage
permit in respect of a notified area or notified
route, the State Transport Authority in any case
where the said area or route lies in more than
one region and the Regional Transport
Authority in any other case shall issue such
permit to the State transport undertaking,
notwithstanding anything to the contrary
contained in Chapter V."

12. It appears that the State of Uttar
Pradesh
approved
a
Scheme
No.
763ि o/XXX708ि o/1950 dated 12.02.1951
under Section 100 of the Act for SultanpurKurebhar-Khajurahat-Bikapur-Faizabad
route. After the scheme was approved, the
Corporation got the right, to the exclusion
of all other persons, to run and operate road
transport services on the said route.

13. The Regional Transport Authority,
Faizabad under Section 103 of the Act,
174 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
issued a permit no. 04/फ़ैज़ाo/09 dated
07.01.2009 in favour of the Corporation for
running 100 buses of the Corporation till
the subsistence of the scheme. The said
permit does not contain the bus numbers.

14. In The Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. U.P.S.R.T.C. and others, 2015 (33)
LCD 2814, a Division Bench of this Court
considered the question as to whether there
was
any
statutory
requirement
of
mentioning the bus numbers in a permit
issued under section 103 of the Act to the
State Transport Undertaking by the State
Transport Authority
or
the
Regional
Transport Authority as the case may be.
This Court after taking into account the
relevant provisions of the Act and the
Rules, along with the U.P. State Road
Transport Services (Development) Rules,
1974 answered the said question in the
negative. Paragraph 9 (relevant portion),
10, 11, 12 and 13 of the said report are
extracted below:

"9. The only point which has
been put forward by Sri B.C. Pandey,
learned counsel for the Insurance Company
is that the permit filed before the Tribunal
was a photostat copy and the same was not
got proved by anybody and the same does
not contain any number of bus. The
aforesaid argument has to be considered in
the light of provision contained under the
Act. Section 103 of the Act is as under:

*
 *
 *

10. The procedure provided under
Rule 10 of the Rules of 1974 is very clear
and explicit, which says that as and when
an application under Sub-Rule (1) is made,
the State Transport Authorities or Regional
Transport Authorities, as the case may be,
may issue a permit to the State Transport
Undertaking for the notified route or
notified area accordingly.

11. Counsel for UPSRTC has laid
emphasis on the words ''notified route or
notified area' are the only requirement as
contemplated under the Act and to
substantiate his case, he has further drawn
the attention of the Court towards Form IV
Part A of the permit. Form IV part A goes
to indicate that notified route or notified
area is the only requirement and nothing
more than that. And the requirement is also
to the same effect that the State Transport
Authorities
or
Regional
Transport
Authorities are required to issue permit to
the State Transport Undertaking indicating
notified route or notified area.

12. Once the requirement for
issuance of permit for notified route or
notified area has been made, the argument
of learned counsel for the appellant that
bus number must be mentioned on the
permit cannot be accepted and neither
termed to be statutory requirement as
contemplated under the Act or Rules. The
further argument of learned counsel for the
appellant is that the said permit has not
been proved. It is to be noted that photostat
copy of the permit was filed by UPSRTC.
The UPSRTC happens to be a public body.
The custodian of the original record is the
said public body and, therefore, attested
photostat copy of the same has been filed
by UPSRTC before the Tribunal, therefore,
it cannot be said that it is not a correct
document
and
the
same
cannot
be
considered."

(emphasis supplied)

15. The judgment in the case
mentioned above has been followed by this
Court in a number of subsequent cases. In
First Appeal From Order No. 194 of 2011,
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Lucknow
Thru Manager a co-ordinate Bench of this
Court, following the Division Bench
9 All. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Lko Vs. Smt. Saroj & Ors.
175
decision mentioned in the preceding
paragraph, has held as under:

"13. The learned counsel for the
respondent no.3 has referred to a judgment
of the Division Bench of this Court
rendered in FAFO No. 1090 of 2011,
decided on 23.7.2015. In this case also
similar question was raised and the
Division
Bench held
that
once
the
requirement for issuance of permit for
notified route or notified area has been
made, the argument of learned counsel for
the appellant that bus number must be
mentioned on the permit, cannot be
accepted. It was also held that no such
statutory
requirement
is
contemplated
either under the Act or under the Rules. A
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court also had
an occasion to examine this aspect of the
matter in FAFO No. 462 of 2016 and FAFO
No. 504 of 2014. In both the cases the Coordinate Bench came to the conclusion that
Section 103 of the Motor Vehicles Act
envisages the procedure of issuance of
permit in favour of U.P.S.R.T.C. The
Honb'le Single Judge, while deciding the
appeals considered the matter in detail and
found that once a motor vehicle operated
by U.P.S.R.T.C. is covered under Chapter
VI of the Act, no permit as provided under
Section 66 of the Act is required. It was
also considered by the Court that Rule 130
of the U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules 1998
prescribes the procedure for issuance of
permit in favour of U.P.S.R.T.C. The
prescribed form for obtaining permit is
Form No. S.R. 46. This form also clearly
mentions the issuance of permit under
Section 103 of the Act. The other vehicles
which are operated privately or issued
permit in form S.R. 29 are regulated by
Section 66 of the Act.

14. So far as the validity of
permit is concerned, the Rules clearly
provide that the permit issued, shall remain
valid till the scheme remains in force. Since
the scheme of the U.P.S.R.T.C. to ply the
buses on specified routes, is still in force
therefore, there is no question of expiry of
any permit. Although permit was granted
under the old Act and the Rules but by the
enactment new Act in the year 1998, the
permit granted under the old Act remained
uneffected. It was clearly provided, that the
permits granted under the old Act will
continue to remain valid in the new Act.

*
 * *

18. Having heard learned counsel
for the parties and having considered the
various provisions of the Act as well as the
law on the subject referred by the learned
counsel for the parties, I find that the only
requirement for the buses belonging to
U.P.S.R.T.C. is that they should be used
within the notified area on the specified
routes mentioned in the permit. There is no
requirement that the permit should be
issued in respect of the each and every bus
belonging to Corporation."
 (emphasis supplied)

16. The law in this regard appears to
be fairly well settled. In both the cases
mentioned above, the appeal was filed by
the Oriental Insurance Company, the
Appellant herein. The judgment of the
Division Bench of this Court was not
assailed by the Appellant before the higher
forum and has, thus, become final. The
conduct of the Appellant in raising the
same issue again and again in every case
involving the Corporation cannot be
countenanced. The first contention of the
counsel for the Appellant is accordingly
repelled.

17. The second contention of the
counsel for the Appellant is also without
substance.
176 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

18. By Uttar Pradesh Amendment Act
5 of 1993, sub-section (1A) was inserted
after sub-section (1) of Section 103 of the
Act w.e.f. 16.01.1993. Sub-section (1A) is
extracted below:

"(1A) It shall be lawful for a State
transport undertaking to operate on any
route as stage carriage, under any permit
issued therefor to such undertaking under
sub-section (1), any vehicle placed at the
disposal and under the control of such
undertaking by the owner of such vehicle
under
any
arrangement
entered
into
between such owner and the undertaking
for the use of the said vehicle by the
undertaking."

19. Sub-section (1A) of Section 103
of the Act, empowers the Corporation to
hire any vehicle which could be plied on
any route for which permit had been issued
by the Transport Authority in its favour.

20. In U.P.S.R.T.C. v. Kulsum, (2011)
8 SCC 142, the Apex Court considered the
question as to whether in case of an
accident of an insured vehicle (in the said
case a mini bus) plying under an agreement
of contract with the Corporation, on the
route as per permit granted in favour of the
Corporation, the Insurance Company would
be liable to pay compensation or would it
be the responsibility of the Corporation or
the owner and held as under:

"23.
A
critical
examination
thereof would show that the appellant and
the owner had specifically agreed that the
vehicle will be insured and a driver would
be provided by owner of the vehicle but
overall control, not only on the vehicle but
also on the driver, would be that of the
Corporation. Thus, the vehicle was given
on hire by the owner of the vehicle together
with its existing and running insurance
policy. In view of the aforesaid terms and
conditions, the Insurance Company cannot
escape its liability to pay the amount of
compensation.

*
 * *

26. Thus, in the light of the
aforesaid, it is clear that the Insurance
Company is trying to evade its liability on
flimsy grounds or under misconception of
law.

27. On account of the aforesaid
discussions, it is crystal clear that actual
possession of the vehicle was with the
Corporation. The vehicle, driver and the
conductor were under the direct control and
supervision of the Corporation.

*
 *
 *

30.
Thus,
for
all
practical
purposes, for the relevant period, the
Corporation had become the owner of the
vehicle for the specific period. If the
Corporation had become the owner even
for the specific period and the vehicle
having been insured at the instance of
original owner, it will be deemed that the
vehicle was transferred along with the
insurance policy in existence to the
Corporation and
thus
the
Insurance
Company would not be able to escape its
liability
to
pay
the
amount
of
compensation.

31.
The
liability
to
pay
compensation is based on a statutory
provision. Compulsory insurance of the
vehicle is meant for the benefit of the third
parties. The liability of the owner to have
compulsory insurance is only in regard to
third party and not to the property. Once the
vehicle is insured, the owner as well as any
other person can use the vehicle with the
consent of the owner. Section 146 of the Act
does not provide that any person who uses
the vehicle independently, a separate
insurance policy should be taken. The
9 All. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Lko Vs. Smt. Saroj & Ors.
177
purpose of compulsory insurance in the Act
has been enacted with an object to advance
social justice."
 (emphasis supplied)

21. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Smt. Asha Devi And Ors, First Appeal
From Order No. 310 of 2016, a co-ordinate
Bench of this Court, relying upon the case
of Kulsum (supra), has held that in case of
an accident of a private bus plying under a
contract with the Corporation, the liability
to pay the compensation would be that of
the insurance company. Paragraph 2 and 3
of the said report are extracted below:

"2.
The
appellant
Oriental
Insurance Company Ltd. has questioned the
validity of the award dated 6.2.2016,
passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Barabanki in Motor Accident
Claim Case No. 8/2013 on the ground that
the Bus No. U.P. 41 T/2122 was a private
bus and there was no permit as required
under Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
The appellant is therefore not liable for
payment of compensation because the use
of vehicle without valid permit would
amount to violation of policy condition.
The learned Tribunal has wrongly fixed the
liability upon the appellant.

3. The learned counsel for the
respondents have on the other hand
submitted that it is an admitted fact that
when the accident took place, the bus was
being
used
under
agreement
with
U.P.S.R.T.C. It has been held by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Kulsoom and others reported in 2011 (29)
LCD Page 1648 that if the accident is
caused by an insured bus plying under the
contract attached with U.P.S.R.T.C., the
liability to pay compensation to third party
would be of the Insurance Company and
the Insurance Company cannot escape its
liability for payment of compensation. It
has further been held that when the vehicle
was under the contract of U.P. S.R.T.C., the
question of violation of any condition by
the owner does not arise. Moreover the
requirement to obtain permit under Section
66 of the Act is only for the private owner
to ply their transport vehicles on the route
but once the vehicle comes under the
contract of U.P.S.R.T.C., the Corporation is
free to use the bus on notified route on
notified area as obtained by it under
Section 103 of the Act."
 (emphasis supplied)

22. In the present case, it is not in
dispute that at the relevant time the
offending bus was insured with the
Appellant and the policy was very much in
force and in existence. It has also not been
contended on behalf of the Appellant that
the driver was not entitled to drive the said
vehicle and in view of the decision of the
Apex Court in the case of Kulsum (supra)
the Appellant cannot be heard to contend
that by attaching his bus with the
Corporation, the insured has violated the
terms and conditions of the policy and as
such the Appellant was absolved of his
liability to indemnify the insured.

23. That apart, the Appellant had not
raised this contention before the Court
below. The record reveals that the insured
had entered into a contract with the
Corporation only after getting a ''no
objection' from the Appellant. The letter
dated 30.08.2015 of the Appellant is
extracted below:

Þvksfj,.Vy ba';ksjsal dEiuh fyfeVsM

fpugV] y[kuÅ

lsok esa]

{ks=h; izcU/kd

m0 iz0 ifjogu fuxe QStkckn
178 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

ifjogu fuxe ls feuh cl la0 UP 36
T 1103 dks vuqcU/k djus esa chek dEiuh dks dksbZ
vkiRrh ugha gS rFkk chek dEiuh }kjk chfer cl
ls vuqcU/k vof/k esa dkfjr nq?kZVuk ds QyLo:i
ns; izfrdj dk nkf;Ro chek dEiuh dk gksxkA

 fn
vksfj,.V ba';ksjsal dEiuh fyfeVsM
 fpugV y[kuÅß
 (emphasis supplied)

24. In the circumstances, in any case,
the Appellant is now estopped from
contending that by attaching his bus with
the Corporation, the insured has violated
the terms and conditions of the policy and
it was not liable to indemnify the insured.

25. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, it is apparent that the appeal is
absolutely misconceived and is devoid of
merit and is accordingly dismissed.

26. No order as to cost.
----------
(2020)09ILR A178
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 26.11.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAKESH SRIVASTAVA, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 1078 of 2013

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
 ...Appellant
Versus
Smt. Roop Rani & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Rajeev Misra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Ram Pher Singh
A. Civil Law -Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 -
Sections 149 and 170 - Right of insurer to
contest - Ground available to insurer - If the
insurer is only a noticee, it can only raise such
of those grounds as are permissible in law under
Section 149(2) - But if insurer is a partyrespondent, it can gets a right to contest the
claim on all or any of the grounds that are
available to the insured. (Para 10)
B. Civil Law -Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 -
Sections 66 and 149 - Absence of valid
fitness certificate - Liability of Insurer - Use of a
vehicle in a public place without a permit or in
violation of any condition is a fundamental
breach - Absence of a fitness certificate
amounts to the absence of a valid permit -
Offending vehicle would be deemed to be
without registration and without a valid permit
and as such the liability cannot be imposed
upon the insurer. (Para 11 and 20)
C. Civil Law -Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 -
Doctrine of pay and recover - Breach of policy
condition - In case of third-party risks, the
insurer had to indemnify the compensation
amount payable to the third-party and the
insurance company may recover the same from
the insured - Held, the impugned award
directing the appellant to indemnify the owner is
set aside. (Para 21 and 25)

Appeal partly allowed. (E-1)

Cases relied on :-

1. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shila
Datta; (2011) 10 SCC 509
2. Narinder Singh Vs New India Assurance Co.
Ltd.; (2014) 9 SCC 324
3. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Challa
Upendra Rao; (2004) 8 SCC 517
4. Amrit Paul Singh Vs TATA AIG General
Insurance Co. Ltd.; (2018) 7 SCC 558
5. Ramankutty & anr.Vs Pareed Pillai & anr.;
2018 SCC Online Ker 3542
6. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Swaran Singh;
(2004)
3
SCC
297