Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:72298 Court No. - 48 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2267 of 2004 Appellant :- United India Insurance Co Ltd Respondent :- Smt. Nandani Devi And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Saurabh Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Rajendra Prasad Giri,Dinesh Kumar Srivastava,K.P. Pandey,Priya Dixit,S.R. Verma Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J. List has been revised. Heard Sri Saurabh Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, Ms. Priya Dixit, learned counsel appearing for claimants-respondent Nos. 1 to 6 and learned Standing Counsel for respondent no. 9 State of U.P. No one is present on behalf of respondent nos. 7 & 8. This first appeal from order has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 26.5.2004 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/IV Additional District Judge, Ballia in M.A.C.P. No.56 of 2002 (Nandini and others vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and others), by which compensation of Rs.8,61,840/- alongwith 6% interest has been awarded to the claimants on account of death of Ramji Yadav in a road accident occurred on 27.3.2002. The only submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the vehicle was being plied in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy and driver- Subhash Chandra Maurya of Tata Sumo bearing No. UP65 N/8535 was not having valid driving licence. The Claims Tribunal while deciding issue No.3 has recorded the finding that driver- Subhash Chandra Maurya of Tata Sumo bearing No. UP65 N/8535 was not having valid driving licence. The Claims Tribunal has committed error in fixing liability for payment of compensation upon the appellant-Insurance Company/insurer of Tata Sumo. The Claims Tribunal while deciding issue no. 4 has also recorded the finding that the accident was occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of Tata Sumo, who had no valid driving licence. It was also observed that Insurance Company can recover the amount from owner of Tata Sumo, but in operative portion of judgment, the right of recovery has not been given. Learned counsel appearing for claimant respondents does not dispute the argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant. Sri Dinesh Kumar Srivastava, Advocate had already put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.7-Santosh Kumar Singh who was owner of the Tata Sumo but no one is present on his behalf even in the revised call. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The Claims Tribunal while deciding issue no.3 has recorded the finding that no driving licence was produced by the opposite party No.7 and the driver of insured vehicle was not having any valid and effective driving licence. The Tribunal has erred in not giving right of recovery to the Insurance Company as the vehicle was being driven in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy. The First Appeal From Order is partly allowed. The judgment and award dated 26.5.2004 passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is modified to the extent that the appellant-Insurance Company is given right of recovery against owner of the insured vehicle. The appellant had already deposited 50% of the awarded amount in compliance of interim order dated 31.8.2004. The appellant is directed to deposit the remaining amount within two months from today. It is open to the appellant-Insurance Company to recover the entire deposited amount from the owner of Tata Sumo/respondent No.7. The claimants-respondents are permitted to withdraw the entire amount deposited by the Insurance Company without furnishing any security. Interim order, if any, stands discharged. Order on Cross-Objection/ Cross Appeal This cross-objection/cross appeal has been filed by the claimants-appellants for enhancement of compensation alongwith delay condonation application. Ms. Priya Dixit, learned counsel for claimants states that claimants do not want to press this cross-objection. In view of above submission, the cross objection/cross appeal is dismissed as not pressed. Order Date :- 6.5.2025 P.P. Digitally signed by :- POONAM PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad