Insurance Company Limited versus Anjana Shyam &
others, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5237 has laid down
the same principles of law. It is also apt to reproduce
para 15 of the judgment of, herein:
“15. In spite of the relevant provisions of the
statute, insurance still remains a contract between
the owner and the insurer and the parties are
governed by the terms of their contract. The statute
has made insurance obligatory in public interest
and by way of social security and it has also
provided that the insurer would be obliged to fulfil
his obligations as imposed by the contract and as
overseen by the statute notwithstanding any claim
he may have against the other contracting party,
the owner, and meet the claims of third parties
subject to the exceptions provided in Section
149(2) of the Act. But that does not mean that an
insurer is bound to pay amounts outside the
contract of insurance itself or in respect of persons
not covered by the contract at all. In other words,
the insured is covered only to the extent of the
passengers permitted to be insured or directed to
be insured by the statute and actually covered by
the contract. The High Court has considered only
the aspect whether by overloading the vehicle, the
owner had put the vehicle to a use not allowed by
the permit under which the vehicle is used. This
aspect is different from the aspect of determining
the extent of the liability of the insurance company
in respect of the passengers of a stage carriage
insured in terms of Section 147(1)(b)(ii) of the Act.
We are of the view that the insurance company can
be made liable only in respect of the number of
passengers for whom insurance can be taken
under the Act and for whom insurance has been
taken as a fact and not in respect of the other
passengers involved in the accident in a case of
overloading.”
11. This Court in batches of appeals, FAO No.
257 of 2006, titled as National Insurance Company
Ltd. versus Smt. Sumna @ Sharda & others, being the
lead case, decided on 10.04.2015, FAO No. 224 of 2008,
titled as Hem Ram & another versus Krishan Chand &
another, being the lead case, decided on 29.05.2015,
and FAO No. 256 of 2010 titled Oriental Insurance
Company versus Smt. Indiro and others, being the
lead case, decided on 19.6.2015, has laid down the same
principle, which is not disputed by the learned counsel for
the insurer.
12. The apex Court in case titled Lakhmi Chand
versus Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. reported
in (2016) 3 SCC 100, held that the mere factum of
carrying more passengers than the permitted seating
capacity in the goods carrying vehicle by the insured
does not amount to a fundamental breach of the terms
and conditions of the policy so as to allow the insurer to
eschew its liability towards the damage caused to the
vehicle.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
SHIMLA
FAO (MVA) No. 72 of 2011
Date of decision: 12th August, 2016
FAO No. 72/2011.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V Shri Hitender Singh
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice.
Citation: 2017(1) ALLMR(JOURNAL) 102
This application has been filed for
condonation of delay which has crept-in in filing the
present appeal. For the reasons that so many appeals
are pending before this Court relating to the same
accident, have been admitted and are being disposed
of today, I deem it proper to condone the delay which
has crept-in in filing the present appeal. Thus, the
application is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal
is condoned. The application is disposed of.
2. The appeal is already diarized.
3. The FAOs No. 350 of 2011 and 393 of
2016 are also taken on Board and are being disposed
of today alongwith connected appeals.
4. All these appeals are outcome of a
common accident and arise out of the different awards
made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-I
Sirmaur at Nahan, H.P. in different claim petitions
decided on different dates. Thus, I deem it proper to
determine all these appeals by this common judgment.
5. Following compensation came to be
granted by the Tribunal, for short “the Tribunal”, in
favour of the claimants in different claim petitions and
insurer was saddled with the liability, hereinafter
referred to as “the impugned awards”, for short.
Sr. No. Claim petition No/title Decided on Compensation
awarded
Subject
matter of
appeal.
1. 138-MAC/2 of 2007 titled
Shri Hitender Singh and
another versus Sh. Jatti
Ram and others
4.1.2011 Rs.1,90,000/-
alongwith
interest @7.5%
per annum
FAO(MVA)
No. 72 of
2011.
2. 158-MAC/2 of 2007 titled
Smt. Durma and another
versus Sh. Jatti Ram and
others
11.1.2011 Rs.1,90,800/-
alongwith
interest @7.5%
per annum
FAO(MVA)
No. 73 of
2011.
3. 140-MAC/2 of 2007 titled
Sh. Joginder Paul versus
Sh. Jatti Ram and others
04.1.2011 Rs.3,80,000/-
alongwith
interest @7.5%
per annum
FAO(MVA)
No. 74 of
2011.
4. 48-MAC/2 of 2008 titled
Nilesh Pundir versus Sh.
Jatti Ram and others.
22.11.2010 Rs.3,49,452/-
alongwith
interest @7.5%
per annum
FAO(MVA)
No. 79 of
2011.
5. 53-MAC/2 of 2008 titled
Smt. Tara Devi and
another versus Sh.
Balwant Singh and others.
10.12.2010 Rs.3,34,000/-
alongwith
interest @7.5%
per annum
FAO(MVA)
No. 80 of
2011.
6. 72-MAC/2 of 2008 titled
Kumari Sonam versus
Ram Lal and others.
10.12.2010. Rs.1,59,339/-
alongwith
interest @7.5%
per annum
FAO(MVA)
No. 81 of
2011.
7. 136-MAC/2 of 2007 titled
Smt. Sunita Devi and
others versus Sh. Ram Lal
and others.
10.12.2010 Rs.5,50,000/-
alongwith
interest @7.5%
per annum.
FAO(MVA)
No. 82 of
2011.
8. 144-MAC/2 of 2007 titled
Smt. Meera Devi versus
Sh. Jatti Ram and others.
10.12.2010 Rs.3,34,000/-
alongwith
interest @7.5%
per annum
FAO(MVA)
No. 83 of
2011.
9. 124-MAC/2 of 2007 titled
Salig Ram and others
versus Sh. Balwant Thapa
and others
30.10.2010. Rs.5,24,000/-
alongwith
interest @7.5%
per annum
FAO(MVA)
No. 84 of
2011.
10. 128-MAC/2 of 2007 titled
Kumari Rajni Bala and
others versus Sh. Ram Lal
and others.
30.10.2010 Rs.6,22,000/-
alongwith
interest @7.5%
per annum
FAO(MVA)
No. 85 of
2011.
11. 130-MAC/2 of 2007 titled
Kumari Rajni Bala and
others versus Sh. Ram Lal
and others
30.10.2010 Rs.6,22,000/-
alongwith
interest @7.5%
per annum.
FAO(MVA)
No. 86 of
2011.
12. 40-MAC/2 of 2008 titled
Sh. Jatti Ram and another
versus Sh. Ram Lal and
others.
30.10.2010 Rs.4,50,800/-
alongwith
interest @7.5%
per annum
FAO(MVA)
No. 87 of
2011.
13. 45-MAC/2 of 2008 titled
Smt. Kamla Devi and
others versus Sh. Jatti
Ram and others.
22.11.2010 Rs.6,26,440/-
alongwith
interest @7.5%
per annum
FAO(MVA)
No. 88 of
2011.
14. 153-MAC/2 of 2007 titled
Sh. Sanjeev Kumar and
others versus Sh. Balwant
Thapa and others
22.11.2010 Rs.6,22,000/-
alongwith
interest @7.5%
per annum
FAO(MVA)
No. 89 of
2011.
15.
155-MAC/2 of 2007 titled
Smt Surendera Devi and
others versus Sh. Balwant
Thapa and others.
22.11.2010 Rs.5,50,000/-
alongwith
interest @7.5%
per annum
FAO(MVA)
No. 90 of
2011.
16. 38-MAC/2 of 2008 titled
Sanjeev Kumar versus Sh.
Balwant Thapa and others
5.3.2011 Rs.15,584/-
alongwith
interest @7.5%
per annum
FAO(MVA)
No. 163 of
2011.
17. 39-MAC/2 of 2008 titled
Kumari Shagun versus
Sh. Balwant Thapa and
others
5.3.2011 Rs.25,500/-
alongwith
interest @7.5%
per annum
FAO(MVA)
No. 183 of
2011.
18. 132-MAC/2 of 2007 titled
Sh. Surender Singh
versus Sh. Ram Lal and
others
4.3.2011 Rs.1,54,000/-
alongwith
interest @7.5%
per annum
FAO(MVA)
No. 185 of
2011.
19. 11-MAC/2 of 2008 titled
Smt. Rekha versus Sh.
1.7.2011 Rs.1,50,000/-
alongwith
FAO(MVA)
No. 331 of
Jatti Ram and others. interest @7.5%
per annum
2011.
20. 71-MAC/2 of 2008 titled
Smt. Rekha and others
versus Sh. Ram Lal and
others.
1.7.2011 Rs.27000/-
alongwith
interest @7.5%
per annum
FAO(MVA)
No. 350 of
2011.
21. 9-MAC/2 of 2008 titled
Smt. Rekha and others
versus Sh. Jatti Ram and
others.
2.6.2011. Rs.6,11,000/-
alongwith
interest @7.5%
per annum.
FAO(MVA)
No. 393 of
2011.
6. Claimants and owner-insured have not
questioned the impugned awards on any ground; have
attained finality so far as they relate to them.
7. The appellant/ insurer has questioned the
impugned awards on the following grounds;
(i) That the accident was outcome of
overloading.
(ii) The owner/insured has transferred the
vehicle to transferee, who is party before this Court,
thus has committed breach of policy, in terms of the
mandate of Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for
short “the Act.”
(iii) The original owner has not been arrayed as
party respondent.
(iv) In the alternative, insurer can be saddled
with the liability to the extent of risk covered as
provided in the terms and conditions of the policy.
8. I have gone through all the impugned
awards and the pleadings.
9. The insurer has failed to prove that the
accident was outcome of overloading. It is beaten law
of the land that overloading cannot be a ground to seek
exoneration.
10. The Apex Court in the case titled as National
Insurance Company Limited versus Anjana Shyam &
others, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5237 has laid down
the same principles of law. It is also apt to reproduce
para 15 of the judgment of, herein:
“15. In spite of the relevant provisions of the
statute, insurance still remains a contract between
the owner and the insurer and the parties are
governed by the terms of their contract. The statute
has made insurance obligatory in public interest
and by way of social security and it has also
provided that the insurer would be obliged to fulfil
his obligations as imposed by the contract and as
overseen by the statute notwithstanding any claim
he may have against the other contracting party,
the owner, and meet the claims of third parties
subject to the exceptions provided in Section
149(2) of the Act. But that does not mean that an
insurer is bound to pay amounts outside the
contract of insurance itself or in respect of persons
not covered by the contract at all. In other words,
the insured is covered only to the extent of the
passengers permitted to be insured or directed to
be insured by the statute and actually covered by
the contract. The High Court has considered only
the aspect whether by overloading the vehicle, the
owner had put the vehicle to a use not allowed by
the permit under which the vehicle is used. This
aspect is different from the aspect of determining
the extent of the liability of the insurance company
in respect of the passengers of a stage carriage
insured in terms of Section 147(1)(b)(ii) of the Act.
We are of the view that the insurance company can
be made liable only in respect of the number of
passengers for whom insurance can be taken
under the Act and for whom insurance has been
taken as a fact and not in respect of the other
passengers involved in the accident in a case of
overloading.”
11. This Court in batches of appeals, FAO No.
257 of 2006, titled as National Insurance Company
Ltd. versus Smt. Sumna @ Sharda & others, being the
lead case, decided on 10.04.2015, FAO No. 224 of 2008,
titled as Hem Ram & another versus Krishan Chand &
another, being the lead case, decided on 29.05.2015,
and FAO No. 256 of 2010 titled Oriental Insurance
Company versus Smt. Indiro and others, being the
lead case, decided on 19.6.2015, has laid down the same
principle, which is not disputed by the learned counsel for
the insurer.
12. The apex Court in case titled Lakhmi Chand
versus Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. reported
in (2016) 3 SCC 100, held that the mere factum of
carrying more passengers than the permitted seating
capacity in the goods carrying vehicle by the insured
does not amount to a fundamental breach of the terms
and conditions of the policy so as to allow the insurer to
eschew its liability towards the damage caused to the
vehicle. It is apt to reproduce para 14 of the said
judgment herein.
“14. The National Commission upheld the order of
dismissal of the complaint of the appellant passed by the
State Commission. The National Commission however,
did not consider the judgment of this Court in the case of
B.V. Nagaraju v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd Divisional
Officer, Hassan, 1996 4 SCC 647. In that case, the
insurance company had taken the defence that the vehicle
in question was carrying more passengers than the
permitted capacity in terms of the policy at the time of the
accident. The said plea of the insurance company was
rejected. This Court held that the mere factum of carrying
more passengers than the permitted seating capacity in
the goods carrying vehicle by the insured does not
amount to a fundamental breach of the terms and
conditions of the policy so as to allow the insurer to
eschew its liability towards the damage caused to the
vehicle. This Court in the said case has held as under:-
"It is plain from the terms of the Insurance Policy
that the insured vehicle was entitled to carry six workmen,
excluding the driver. If those six workmen when travelling
in the vehicle, are assumed not to have increased risk
from the point of view of the Insurance Company on
occurring of an accident, how could those added persons
be said to have contributed to the causing of it is the pose,
keeping apart the load it was carrying.
In the present case the driver of the vehicle was
not responsible for the accident. Merely by lifting a person
or two, or even three, by the driver or the cleaner of the
vehicle, without the knowledge of the owner, cannot be
said to be such a fundamental breach that the owner
should, in all events, be denied indemnification. The
misuse of the vehicle was somewhat irregular though, but
not so fundamental in nature so as to put an end to the
contract, unless some factors existed which by
themselves, had gone to contribute to the causing of the
accident."
13. This Court in a batch of appeals, FAO No.
257 of 2006, titled as National Insurance Company
Ltd. versus Smt. Sumna @ Sharda & others, being the
lead case, decided on 10.04.2015, has held that the
insurer has to satisfy the awards which are on higher
side.
14. There are only 21 appeals arising out of 21
claim petitions till date, falls within the risk covered and
the insurer has to satisfy the said awards. It is made
clear that in case more than 39 claim petitions are filed
out of the same accident in that event, the insurer is
within its right to raise the ground that it has only to
satisfy 39 awards, i.e., claims and not more than that.
15. The arguments advanced by the learned
counsel for the insurer that the vehicle was transferred
and insured has committed breach of policy, is devoid
of any force as the insurer has failed to discharge the
onus to prove that it has complied with the mandate of
Section 157 of the Act.
16. This Court has held and disused this issue
in FAO No. 7 of 2007 titled Ashok Kumar and
another versus Smt. Kamla Devi and others decided
on 5.9.2014. It is apt to reproduce paras 13 to 22 of
the said judgment herein.
“13. Insurance Policy, (Mark-B) was valid from 18th
December, 1999 to 17th December, 2000 and the registered
owner of the vehicle was Anupam Hardware Store, i.e.
respondent No. 3-A in the claim petition.
14.The Tribunal has fallen in error in holding that the
insurer has not to indemnify, which is an eye opener for the
said Presiding Officer, how casually he has dealt with the
case.
15.Section 157 of the Act reads as under:
“Transfer of certificate of insurance.
(1) Where a person in whose favour the
certificate of insurance has been issued in
accordance with the provisions of this
Chapter transfers to another person the
ownership of the motor vehicle in respect of
which such insurance was taken together
with the policy of insurance relating thereto,
the certificate of insurance and the policy
described in the certificate shall be deemed
to have been transferred in favour of the
person to whom the motor vehicle is
transferred with effect from the date of its
transfer.
[Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it
is hereby declared that such deemed
transfer shall include transfer of rights and
liabilities of the said certificate of insurance
and policy of insurance.]
(2) The transferee shall apply within fourteen days
from the date of transfer in the prescribed
form to the insurer for making necessary
changes in regard to the fact of transfer in
the certificate of insurance and the policy
described in the certificate in his favour and
the insurer shall make the necessary
changes in the certificate and the policy of
insurance in regard to the transfer of
insurance.”
While going through the aforesaid provision, one comes to
an inescapable conclusion that transfer of a vehicle cannot
absolve insurer from third party liability and the insurer has
to satisfy the award.
16. Admittedly, on the date of accident, i.e.
05.06.2000, the offending vehicle was not transferred in the
name of appellant-Ashok Kumar. It was transferred in his
name w.e.f. 17.06.2000. Thereafter, the appellantrespondent
No. 1 Ashok Kumar was supposed to give
information regarding transfer of the vehicle to the insurerInsurance
Company. The vehicle was not transferred on
the date of accident, thus the question of informing the
insurer about the transfer of the vehicle does not arise, at
all. If the offending vehicle would have been transferred
on the date of accident, i.e. 5th June, 2000, that can not be
a ground to defeat the rights of the third party. As per the
mandate of the Section (supra), the insurance policy shall
be deemed to have been issued in favour of the transferee.
17. My this view is fortified by the Apex Court
Judgment in case titled as G. Govindan versus New India
Assurance Company Ltd. and others, reported in AIR
1999 SC 1398. It is apt to reproduce paras-10, 13 & 15 of
the aforesaid judgment herein:
“ 10. This Court in the said judgment held that
the provisions under the new Act and the
old Act are substantially the same in
relation to liability in regard to third party.
This Court also recognised the view taken
in the separate judgment in Kondaiah's
case that the transferee-insured could not
be said to be a third party qua the vehicle
in question. In other words, a victim or the
legal representatives of the victim cannot
be denied the compensation by the insurer
on the ground that the policy was not
transferred in the name of the transferee.
11. ……………………
12. …………………...
13. In our opinion that both under the old Act and
under the new Act the Legislature was
anxious to protect the third party (victim)
interest. It appears that what was implicit in
the provisions of the old Act is now made
explicit, presumably in view of the conflicting
decisions on this aspect among the various
High Courts.
14. …………………….
15. As between the two conflicting views of the
Full Bench judgments noticed above, we
prefer to approve the ratio laid down by the
Andhra Pradesh High Court in Kondaiah's
case (AIR 1986 Andh Pra 62) as it advances
the object of the Legislature to protect the
third party interest. We hasten to add that the
third party here will not include a transferee
whose transferor has not followed procedure
for transfer of policy. In other words in accord
with the well-settled rule of interpretation of
statutes we are inclined to hold that the view
taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in
Kondaiah's case is preferable to the contrary
views taken by the Karnataka and Delhi High
Courts (supra) even assuming that two views
are possible on the interpretation of relevant
sections as it promotes the object of the
Legislature in protecting the third party
(victim) interest. The ratio laid down in the
judgment of Karnataka and Delhi High Courts
(AIR 1990 Kant 166 (FB) and AIR 1989 Delhi
88) (FB) (supra) differing from Andhra
Pradesh High Court is not the correct one.”
18. The Apex Court in case titled as Rikhi Ram and
another versus Smt. Sukhrania and others, reported in
AIR 2003 SC 1446 held that in absence of intimation of
transfer to Insurance Company, the liability of Insurance
Company does not cease. It is apt to reproduce paras 5, 6
& 7 of the judgment, supra, herein:-
“5. The aforesaid provision shows that it was
intended to cover two legal objectives.
Firstly, that no one who was not a party
to a contract would bring an action on a
contract; and secondly, that a person
who has no interest in the subject matter
of an insurance can claim the benefit of
an insurance. Thus, once the vehicle is
insured, the owner as well as any other
person can use the vehicle with the
consent of the owner. Section 94 does
not provide that any person who will use
the vehicle shall insure the vehicle in
respect of his separate use.
6. On an analysis of Ss. 94 and 95, we
further find that there are two third
parties when a vehicle is transferred by
the owner to a purchaser. The purchaser
is one of the third parties to the contract
and other third party is for whose benefit
the vehicle was insured. So far, the
transferee who is the third party in the
contract, cannot get any personal benefit
under the policy unless there is a
compliance of the provisions of the Act.
However, so far as third party injured or
victim is concerned, he can enforce
liability undertaken by the insurer.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that
whenever a vehicle which is covered by
the insurance policy is transferred to a
transferee, the liability of insurer does
not ceases so far as the third
party/victim is concerned, even if the
owner or purchaser does not give any
intimation as required under the
provisions of the Act.”
19. The Apex Court in latest judgment titled as United
India Insurance Co. Ltd., Shimla versus Tilak Singh and
others, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 404 has held the same
principle. It is apt to reproduce paras- 12 & 13 of the said
judgment herein:
“12. In Rikhi Ram v. Sukhrania [(2003) 3 SCC 97
: 2003 SCC (Cri) 735] a Bench of three
learned Judges of this Court had occasion to
consider Section 103-A of the 1939 Act. This
Court reaffirmed the decision in G. Govindan
case and added that the liability of an insurer
does not cease even if the owner or
purchaser fails to give intimation of transfer to
the Insurance Company, as the purpose of
the legislation was to protect the rights and
interests of the third party.
13. Thus, in our view, the situation in law which
arises from the failure of the transferor to
notify the insurer of the fact of transfer of
ownership of the insured vehicle is no
different, whether under Section 103-A of the
1939 Act or under Section 157 of the 1988
Act insofar as the liability towards a third
party is concerned. Thus, whether the old Act
applies to the facts before us, or the new Act
applies, as far as the deceased third party
was concerned, the result would not be
different. Hence, the contention of the
appellant on the second issue must fail,
either way, making a decision on the first
contention unnecessary, for deciding the
second issue. However, it may be necessary
to decide which Act applies for deciding the
third contention. In our view, it is not the
transfer of the vehicle but the accident which
furnishes the cause of action for the
application before the Tribunal. Undoubtedly,
the accident took place after the 1988 Act
had come into force. Hence it is the 1988 Act
which would govern the situation.”
20. Having said so, the Tribunal has fallen in error in
exonerating the insurer-Insurance Company from liability
and saddling owner Ashok Kumar and driver Kalyan Chand
with liability.
21. The Tribunal has discussed the Apex Court
judgment titled as United India Insurance Company
Limited Shimla versus Tilak Singh & others, reported in
2006 SCCR, 473, but has wrongly applied it. The Tribunal
has also not taken note of the fact that on the date of
accident, the vehicle was in the name of registered ownerAnupam
Hardware Store and was not transferred to Ashok
Kumar, son of Shri Kishori Lal.
22. Having said so, it is held that the insurer-Insurance
Company has to indemnify. Accordingly, issues No. 1, 3,
4, 5 & 6 are decided against the insurer and in favour of the
claimants.”
17. Mr. Lalit K. Sharma, the learned counsel for
the insurer has also placed reliance on the judgment
delivered by the apex Court in case titled U.P. State
road Transport Corporation versus Kulsum and
others reported in 2011 ACJ 2145, to this effect.
18. Having said so, this ground is not available
to the insurer.
19. The apex Court and this Court in various
judgments have held that the insurer has to satisfy the
award to the extent of the risk covered and if the claim
petitions are more than the risk covered, then it is for the
insured-owner to satisfy the same.
20. The Apex Court in the case titled as United
India Insurance Company Limited versus K.M.
Poonam & others, reported in 2011 ACJ 917, has laid
down the law. It is apt to reproduce para 24 of the
judgment herein:
“24. The liability of the insurer, therefore, is
confined to the number of persons covered by the
insurance policy and not beyond the same. In other
words, as in the present case, since the insurance
policy of the owner of the vehicle covered six
occupants of the vehicle in question, including the
driver, the liability of the insurer would be confined
to six persons only, notwithstanding the larger
number of persons carried in the vehicle. Such
excess number of persons would have to be treated
as third parties, but since no premium had been
paid in the policy for them, the insurer would not be
liable to make payment of the compensation
amount as far as they are concerned. However, the
liability of the Insurance Company to make payment
even in respect of persons not covered by the
insurance policy continues under the provisions of
sub-section (1) of Section 149 of the Act, as it
would be entitled to recover the same if it could
prove that one of the conditions of the policy had
been breached by the owner of the vehicle. In the
instant case, any of the persons travelling in the
vehicle in excess of the permitted number of six
passengers, though entitled to be compensated by
the owner of the vehicle, would still be entitled to
receive the compensation amount from the insurer,
who could then recover it from the insured owner of
the vehicle."
21. This Court in FAO No. 107 of 2011, titled
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Smt. Gurmeet
Rani and others decided on 29.7.2016 has laid down
the same principles of law.
22. Viewed thus, the impugned awards are
upheld.
23. The Tribunal has rightly held that the
factum of insurance is admitted and the insurer has to
satisfy. The Tribunal has rightly made the discussion in
para 15 of the impugned award, needs no interference.
24. The Registry is directed to release the
awarded amount in favour of the claimant(s), through
payees’ cheque account or by depositing the same in
their bank accounts, strictly in terms of the conditions
contained in the impugned award.
25. Keeping in view the discussion made
hereinabove, all the impugned awards are upheld and
the appeals are disposed of.
26. Send down the record forthwith, after
placing a copy of this judgment on each file.
August 12, 2016. (Mansoor Ahmad Mir)
(cm Thakur) Chief Justice.
No comments:
Post a Comment