[1] Heard Ms. R. D. Mozumdar, the learned counsel for the appellant insurance company. Also heard Mr. K. K. Dey, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2/ claimants.

[2] This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited impugning the judgment and award dated 17.01.2025, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in MAC Case No. 2640/2019, whereby the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had directed the present appellant to pay the compensation amount of Rs. 14,65,984/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the awarded amount. It was further observed in Paragraph No. 53 of the impugned judgment that the insurance company is at liberty to recover the awarded amount from the owner of the offending vehicle as per law.

[3] The facts relevant for consideration of the instant appeal, in brief, are that on 10.08.2019, when the claimant No. 1, namely, Late Gokul Haloi, was walking by the left side of the road near his house at Chanda, a traveler vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-25-AC-0672, coming at a high speed, knocked him down. As a result of the said accident, Late Gokul Haloi sustained grievous injuries on his person and later on, he succumbed to his injuries. An FIR was also lodged in connection with the aforesaid accident and on the basis of the said FIR, the Mukalmua P.S. Case No. 407/2019 was registered under Sections 279/338/337/304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

[4] The respondent Nos. 1 and 2, who are the widow and son of the deceased Late Gokul Haloi respectively, approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati by filing an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation for death of their husband/father.

[5] The present appellant contested the claim by filing written statement. The owner and the driver of the offending vehicle did not appear before the Tribunal and the claim case proceeded ex parte against them.

[6] Amongst the defences taken by the insurance company in its written statement, it also took the defence that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess any valid driving licence at the time of the alleged accident.

[7] Upon pleadings of both the parties, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati framed the following issues: -

                   1. Whether the alleged motor vehicular accident had taken place on 10-08-2019 at about 2.45 PM at Chanda on Hajo-Barpeta PWD Road under Mukalmua P.S. in the district of Kamrup, Assam due to rash and negligent manner of driving on the part of the driver of the vehicle bearing Registration No.AS-25-AC-0672 and in consequence of that Gokul Haloi had died?

                   2. Whether the vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-25-AC-0672 was duly insured with the O.P. No.3 i.e. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. under valid insurance policy at the relevant time of accident?

                   3. Whether the claimants are entitled to get compensation, if so, to what extent and by whom payable?

                   4. To what other relief/reliefs the claimant is entitled to in law and equity?

[8] In support of their claim, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2/ claimants adduced evidence of two witnesses, including the claimant No. 1 as PW-1 and one Dipjyoti Nayak as PW-2. The insurance company examined one Biswajit Roy as DW-1.

[9] Ultimately, after considering the evidence on record and hearing the learned counsel for both sides, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 1, Kamrup (M) decided all the issues in favour of the claimants and awarded them the compensation in the manner as already discussed in Paragraph No. 2 of the instant judgment hereinbefore.

[10] Ms. R.D. Mozumdar, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in the impugned judgment in Paragraph No.47, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has held that there has been a violation of the stipulation of the insurance policy by the owner of the offending vehicle in not having the valid permit in respect of the offending vehicle on the date of the accident, hence, it was held by the Tribunal that the owner of the offending vehicle had breached the condition of insurance policy, therefore, it is for the owner of the offending vehicle to pay the compensation to the claimant/respondent.

[11] The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that as the impugned judgment has given liberty to the present appellant to recover the amount of compensation to be paid by the present appellant from the owner, therefore, it is pressing the instant appeal mainly on the ground that the mode of recovery of the compensation payable by the present appellant to the claimant has to be as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of “Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Shri Nanjappan and others “reported in (2004) 13 SCC 224. She submits that in the aforesaid case, the Apex Court has observed that in the event the Insurance Company is directed to pay the compensation to the claimant first and thereafter recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle, the Tribunal has to first ensure that before release of the amount deposited by the Insurance Company to the insured, owner of the vehicle shall be issued a notice and he shall be required to furnish security for the entire amount, which the Insurance Company will pay to the claimant.

[12] She further submits that the Apex Court has also observed that the offending vehicle shall be attached as a part of security and if necessity arises, the Executing Court shall take the assistance of the concerned regional transport authority. The Executing Court shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as to the manner, in which the owner of the vehicle shall make a payment to the insurer.

[13] She submits that the Apex Court also provided that in case, there is any default, it shall be open to the Executing Court to direct realization by disposal of securities to be furnished or from any other property or properties of the owner of the vehicle, the insured.

[14] She submits that the same mode of recovery of compensation in event of payment by insurance company first to the claimant and thereafter, recovering the same from the owner has been followed by the Apex Court in the case of “Shamanna Vs. The Divisional Manager the Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Others” (Judgment dated 08.08.2018 in Civil Appeal No. 8144/2018).

[15] The learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the same mode has also been followed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of “Oriental Insurance Company Limited versus Purnima Kumari and others” (judgment dated 05.12.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 132/2020).

[16] She, therefore, submits that a clarification to that extent may be made while disposing this appeal, that the appellant may be allowed to recover the compensation payable by it to the claimant in the mode as prescribed by the Apex Court in the case of “Oriental Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Shri Nanjappan and others” (Supra). She also submits that the appellants may be allowed to deposit the awarded amount before the Registry of this court, however, same may not be released to the claimants before issuance of notice and deposit of security for the entire amount payable to the claimants, by the owner of the offending vehicle.

[17] The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the motor accident claims tribunal had also erred in awarding the interest on the future prospect amount.

[18] On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/ claimant has submitted that it is not necessary to clarify the mode of recovery to be made by the insurance company as it was already directed that the recovery may be done as per law. He submits that a Full Bench of Apex Court in the case of “National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Swaran Singh and Others” reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297 has held that considering the facts and circumstances of a particular case, even the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has power to direct the insurance company to satisfy the decree at the first instance and, thereafter, recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle.

[19] He submits that since the judgment in the aforesaid case was rendered by a larger bench of the Apex Court and since, it has not laid down a specific mode of recovery, the law laid down by Apex Court in the case of “National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Swaran Singh and Others” (supra) has a binding effect.

[20] I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides. I have gone through the materials available on record. I have also gone through the rulings cited by the learned counsel for both sides.

[21] On Perusal of the memo of appeal, as well as records which are available before this court, and also considering the submissions of learned counsel for both sides, this court is of considered opinion that two questions for determinations have arisen in this appeal.

[22] Firstly, in view of the directions given by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Paragraph No. 53 of the impugned judgment, is there any necessity of further clarification, in this appeal, clarifying the mode of recovery of the compensation amount, which is payable by the insurance company to the claimant, from the owner of the offending vehicle. Secondly, whether interest can be awarded on the future prospect added to the income of the deceased while computing his annual income for computing the compensation to be payable to the claimants.

[23] As regards first point for determination in this appeal is concerned, it appears that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has arrived at a conclusion in the impugned judgment that due to absence of a valid permit in respect of offending vehicle on the date of alleged accident, there has been a breach of policy condition and, therefore, it was held by the Tribunal that though the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation to the claimants, it will be at liberty to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle in due course as per law.

[24] Though, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that as per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of “Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Shri Nanjappan and others” (Supra) before release of the compensation amount to the insured, the owner of the vehicle shall have to be issued a notice and then he shall be required to furnish security for entire amount which the insurer shall pay to the claimants. However, after going through the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the Nanjappan’s case, it appears that the said direction was given by the Apex Court in view of the peculiar facts of the case which it was dealing with and no general guidelines were laid down by the Apex Court.

[25] It is also to be taken note of that the decision of the aforesaid case i.e.,” Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Shri Nanjappan and others” (Supra) was rendered by a division bench of Apex Court. Whereas, in this regard, a full bench of Supreme Court of India has observed in the case of “National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Swaran Singh and Others” (Supra) that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal can direct that the insurer is liable to be reimbursed by the insured for the compensation and other amounts which it has been compelled to pay to the third party under the award of the Tribunal. It has also observed that such determination of claim by the Tribunal will be enforceable and the money found due to the insurer from the insured will be recoverable on a certificate issued by the Tribunal to the collector in the same manner under Section 174 of the Act as arrears of land revenue. The certificate will be issued for recovery of arrears of land revenue only if, as required by subsection (3) of Section 168 of the Act the insured fails to deposit the amount awarded in favour of the insurer within 30 days of the date of announcement of the award by the Tribunal.

[26] This court is of considered opinion that the case of “National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Swaran Singh and Others (Supra), which is delivered by a larger bench of the Apex Court than the bench which delivered the judgment in Shri Nanjappan and others” (Supra), and since in the Swaran Singh’s case the Apex Court was considering pure questions of law involved regarding the courses open to the Tribunal, when it comes to a conclusion that there has been a violation of policy condition due to the defects regarding the driving license of the driver of the offending vehicle is concerned, and since the mode of recovery of the amount of money paid by the insurance company to the claimants from the owner or driver of the offending vehicle has been laid down by the court in Swaran Singh’s case, the law laid down in the said case (which is by a larger bench) has a binding effect and has to be followed. Since in the instant case, the Tribunal has only mentioned in Paragraph No. 53 of the impugned judgment that the insurance company is at liberty to recover the compensation paid by it to the claimant from the owner of the offending vehicle in the due course as per law. Hence no further clarification is required as regards mode of recovery of the compensation amount payable by the insurance company from the owner of the offending vehicle.

[27] This court is also of the considered opinion that withholding of release of the compensation amount to the claimant till the issuance of notice to the owner and furnishing of security by him for the entire amount which the insurance will pay to claimants is not a legal requirement though considering the facts of a particular case such direction may also be given by the Tribunal, as was given by the Apex Court in the case of Nanjappan. The first point for determination in this appeal is, accordingly, decided.

[28] As regards the question as to whether interest may be awarded on future prospects which is added to the income of the deceased or not has already been settled by a catena of decisions of this court, namely:

                   1.“Khusboo Chirania @Kanta Chirania Vs. Kamal Kumar Sovasaria” reported in “(2018) 0 Supreme (Gau) 966.”

                   2. “Nasima Begum Vs. Keramat Ali” reported in “(2019)0 Supreme (Gau)507;”

                   3.“The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smti Champabati Ray & Ors.”(Judgment dated 01.10.2019 in MAC Appeal N0.378/2017.

[29] In the abovementioned cases, coordinate benches of this court held that no interest on future prospect should be given. In the case of Smt. Champabati Ray (Supra), a coordinate bench of this court observed that the reason for not awarding interest on future prospect seems to be due to the fact that the future prospect is relatable to an income to be received in the future and as such, there could not be any loss to the claimants for the payment of future prospects at the time the deceased met with the accident. The reason for awarding interest on compensation amount, minus the future prospect is due to the fact that though the loss of dependency starts from the day of the accident and the compensation amount is computed on the date of the award of the Tribunal, interest is awarded to compensate the loss of money value on account of lapse of time. Such as time taken in legal proceeding and for denial of right to utilize the money when it was due. However, the future prospect is with regard to the probable income to be received in future and as such, there is no requirement to compensate the claimant by way of future interest, for the loss i.e. to occur in the future, as the future is yet to happen. Further, future prospect is given for entire future and as such, the claimant is getting compensation in lump sum under future prospect prior to occurrence of such future events.

[30] In view of the aforementioned judgments of the co-ordinate benches of this court, which are binding on this court, it is held that there cannot be any interest on future prospect as same relates to an income to be given in future. Accordingly, in the instant case also, the claimants are not entitled to get any interest on future prospects. Minus the interest accrued on future prospects on the awarded amount, the claimants are entitled to get the amount awarded to them by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in the impugned judgment.

[31] The 50% of the awarded amount already deposited by the insurance company before the Registry of this court shall be disbursed to the claimants by the Registry of this court after proper verification. The remaining 50% of the amount shall also be deposited by the insurance company in terms of the direction given herein before the Registry of this court within a period of 6(six) weeks from the date of this judgment.

[32] The statutory deposit made by the appellant at the time of filing of this appeal shall be returned back to the appellant after due verification.

[33] On such deposits, same shall be disbursed to the claimants after proper verification.

[34] With above observation, this appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.

[35] Let the records of the MAC Case No. 2640/2019 be sent back to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kamrup (Metro), along with a copy of this judgment.