* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAC. APP. 306/2009
BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ... Appellant Through: Ms. Suman Bagga, Advocate
AKRAM HUSSAIN & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Harpreet Singh Uppal, Advocate for the respondents
No.2 and 3.
% Date of Decision July 18, 2011
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
: REVA KHETRAPAL, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated
20.03.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, whereby
MAC. APP. 306/2009 Page 1 of 24 and whereunder compensation in the sum of `2,32,000/- was awarded
to the respondent No.1 on a claim petition preferred by him under
Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
2. With the consent of the parties, the appeal was taken up and
heard at the admission stage.
3. Before adverting to the legal submissions of the parties, a few
facts may be delineated so as to afford a factual background to the
legal submissions sought to be urged. A claim petition was preferred
by the respondent No.1 - Shri Akram Hussain claiming compensation
for the grievous injuries sustained by him consequent to the
motorcycle bearing No. DL-8-SU-5274 hitting his scooter from
behind. It was alleged in the claim petition that the accident was the
result of the fast speed, and the rash and negligent manner in which
the offending motorcycle was being driven. The driver, the owner
and the insurer of the motorcycle, who were impleaded in the claim
petition as respondents, filed their written statements denying their
liability to pay compensation to the injured victim.
MAC. APP. 306/2009 Page 2 of 24
4. The appellant/Insurance Company took the plea that the
respondent No.2 had a driving licence for driving a Light Motor
Vehicle (Non-Transport), however, at the time of the accident, he was
driving a motorcycle. The respondents No.2 and 3, on the other hand,
took the stand that the respondent No.2 had a driving licence for a
higher category, and therefore, it could not be said that he was
incompetent to drive a lower category vehicle and that in any case,
non-possession of a driving licence for a lower category of vehicle
does not amount to violation of the terms and conditions of the
5. The learned Claims Tribunal held that since the driver in the
present case had a valid driving licence for driving LMV and was
qualified to drive LMV, he apparently also possessed the qualification
to drive a vehicle of a lower category. In these circumstances, it
could not be said that the violation was so fundamental as would have
contributed to the cause of the accident. The learned Claims Tribunal,
therefore, refused to grant recovery rights to the appellant Insurance
MAC. APP. 306/2009 Page 3 of 24 Company and directed the appellant to pay the entire award amount to
the respondent No.1.
6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid findings of the Claims Tribunal, the
appellant Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal on the
ground that the learned Claims Tribunal failed to appreciate that the
motorcycle comes under a different category from LMV (NT) and
that if a person knows how to drive a motor car, it does not
necessarily mean that he is qualified to drive a motorcycle as well.
7. In the above context, Ms. Suman Bagga, the learned counsel
for the appellant, pointed out that in the course of his cross-
examination, the respondent No.2, who was driving the alleged
offending vehicle and who appeared in the witness-box as R1W1,
categorically admitted that the vehicle driven by him was in the name
of his mother and that he had a driving licence for driving LMV (NT).
Ms. Bagga also referred to and relied upon the testimony of R3W2 -
Shri Naresh Chand, LDC, Delhi Transport Authority, West Zone,
Janak Puri, New Delhi who proved on record the driving licence of
the respondent No.2 (Ex.R3W2/A) as a driving licence for driving
MAC. APP. 306/2009 Page 4 of 24 LMV (NT) only, and in particular on the statement of the said witness
that the respondent No.2 was not authorized to drive a
motorcycle/two-wheeler under the driving licence held by him. Ms.
Bagga contended that a motorcycle was an altogether different
category of vehicle, which was incapable of being clubbed with any
other category, and as the respondent No.2 was not holding a driving
licence for driving a motorcycle at the time of the accident, there was
a clear breach of the terms and conditions of the Insurance policy and
hence the Insurance Company was not liable to pay any compensation
to the injured- victim and the liability to pay compensation, if any,
was that of the respondents No.2 and 3.
8. Ms. Bagga further urged that the learned Claims Tribunal failed
to appreciate that the respondent No.2 being the son of the
insured/owner, the respondent No.3, was driving the motor cycle with
the knowledge and consent of the insured/owner. The respondent
No.3 had the full knowledge that the driving licence held by the
respondent No.2 did not entitle him to drive a motorcycle. There was,
thus, wilful breach of the terms and conditions of the policy on the
MAC. APP. 306/2009 Page 5 of 24 part of the insured by allowing the respondent No.2 to drive the motor
cycle owned by her without a valid and effective driving licence to
drive the said vehicle. The appellant - Insurance Company, therefore,
ought to have been exonerated of any liability in the present case, and
at the very least, ought to have been given recovery rights to enable it
to recover the awarded amount from the insured/owner.
9. Ms. Bagga further contended that impugned award was
contrary to the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the decisions rendered by it in the cases of National
Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh and Ors. I (2004) ACC 1 (SC);
ACC 437 (SC), and National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kusum Rai and
Ors. II (2006) ACC 19 (SC). In the aforesaid judgments, it has been
clearly held that when the insured has handed over the vehicle for
being driven to an unlicensed driver, the Insurance Company got
exonerated from its liability to bear the claims of the third party, who
might have suffered on account of the vehicular accident caused by
such unlicensed driver.
MAC. APP. 306/2009 Page 6 of 24
10. Reference was also made by Ms. Suman Bagga, the learned
counsel for the appellant, to the judgment of the Supreme Court
rendered in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Geeta Bhat
and Ors., AIR 2008 SC 1837, the relevant part whereof reads as
"An owner of the vehicle is bound to make reasonable enquiry as to whether the person who is authorized to drive the vehicle holds a licence or not. Such a licence not only must be an effective one but should also be a valid one. It should be issued for driving a category of vehicle as specified in Motor Vehicles Act and/or Rules framed thereunder."
11. Mr. Harpreet Singh Uppal, the learned counsel for the
respondents No. 2 and 3, sought to rebut the aforesaid contentions of
the learned counsel for the appellant by submitting that the Insurance
Company had not taken any plea in its written statement that the
breach of policy condition was wilful on the part of the insured.
Furthermore, there was nothing on record to suggest that the keys of
the offending vehicle were taken by the respondent No.2 with the
consent of the insured. Mr. Uppal placed reliance upon the three-
Judge Bench decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the
MAC. APP. 306/2009 Page 7 of 24 cases of Sohal Lal Passi vs. P. Sesh Reddy and Ors. 1996 ACJ 1044
and National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh (2004) 3
SCC 297; the decision of this High Court in V. Mepherson and Anr.
vs. Shiv Charan Singh and Ors. 1998 ACJ 601 and the decision of
the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar
Arora vs. Balwant Singh 2001 (1) T.A.C. 677 (P&H).
12. He contended that the common thread which runs through all
the aforesaid decisions is that in order to bring the case within the
mischief of "breach", it must be proved by the Insurance Company
that there was wilful default on the part of the insured. Where there is
no evidence on record to indicate that the owner of the vehicle had
parted with the keys of the vehicle, deliberately or knowingly, to a
person who had caused the accident, it cannot be said that there was
an express or implied consent on the part of the insured/owner, so as
to exonerate the Insurance Company from the liability to pay
compensation to the victim.
13. Mr. Uppal contended that in the case of Sohan Lal Passi
(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had gone to the extent of laying
MAC. APP. 306/2009 Page 8 of 24 down that technical objection should not be allowed to be raised by
the Insurance Company. In that case, the person driving the vehicle
was not even a driver and was in fact a cleaner, who was not holding
any licence, but the actual driver who had a valid driving licence, had
authorized him to drive the vehicle. In the circumstances, the
Supreme Court held that no breach of the terms and conditions of the
policy had been established. It observed:
"In a case where the person who has got insured the vehicle with the insurance company, has appointed a duly licensed driver and if the accident takes place when the vehicle is being driven by a person not duly licensed on the basis of the authority of the driver duly authorised to drive the vehicle whether the insurance company in that event shall be absolved from its liability? While interpreting the contract of insurance, the Tribunal and Courts have to be conscious of the fact that right to claim compensation by heirs and legal representatives of the victims of the accident is not defeated on technical grounds. Unless it is established on the materials on record that it was the insured who had wilfully violated the condition of the policy by allowing a person not duly licensed to drive the vehicle when the accident took place, the insurer shall be deemed to be a judgement debtor in respect of the liability in view of sub-section (1) of section 96 of the Act."
It was further observed by the Supreme Court:
MAC. APP. 306/2009 Page 9 of 24 "The whole concept of getting the vehicle insured by an insurance company is to provide an easy mode of getting compensation by the claimants, otherwise in normal course they had to pursue their claim against the owner from one forum to the other and ultimately to execute the order of Accidents Claims Tribunal for realisation of such amount by sale of properties of the owner of the vehicle."
14. In the case of V.Mepherson (supra) decided by a learned
Single Judge of this Court, the car which had caused the accident was
being driven by the son of the owner at the time of the accident. He
had no licence to drive the car. The learned Tribunal mulcted the
liability on the driver and owner and exempted the Insurance
Company on the ground that the driver had no licence to drive the car.
Setting aside the judgment of the Tribunal, the High Court held that if
it had been brought on record that the owner himself had allowed the
vehicle to be driven by his son, who was not duly licenced, then, the
bar created by sub-section (2) of Section 96 would have been
attracted but the facts which had come on record showed that the son
had in the absence of the father, who had gone out of station, used the
vehicle without the consent and knowledge of his father. Interpreting
MAC. APP. 306/2009 Page 10 of 24 the expression "breach" occurring in Section 96(2)(b), the Court held
that it was incumbent upon the insurer to satisfy the Tribunal or the
Court that such violation or infringement on the part of the insured
was wilful and if the insurer was unable to establish wilful breach on
the part of the insured, the Insurance Company could not repudiate its
15. Mr. Uppal also relied upon the following apposite observations
made by the Supreme Court in the case of Swaran Singh (supra):
"The insurance company is required to prove the breach of the condition of the contract of insurance by cogent evidence. In the event the insurance company fails to prove that there has been breach of conditions of the policy on the part of the insured, the insurance company cannot be absolved of its liability. This court did not lay down a degree of proof, but held that the parties alleging the breach must be held to have succeeded in establishing the breach of the conditions of the contract of insurance in the part of the insurance company by discharging its burden of proof. The Tribunal, must arrive at a finding on the basis of the materials available on the record."
"The summary of our findings to the various issues as raised in these petitions are as follows:
MAC. APP. 306/2009 Page 11 of 24 (i) Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 providing compulsory insurance of
vehicles against third party risks is a social welfare legislation to extend relief by
compensation to victims of accidents caused by use of motor vehicles. The provisions of compulsory insurance coverage of all
vehicles are with this paramount object and the provisions of the Act have to be so
interpreted as to effectuate the said object.
(ii) Insurer is entitled to raise a defence in a claim petition filed under Section 163A or Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 inter alia in terms of Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the said Act.
(iii) The breach of policy condition, e.g. disqualification of driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in Sub- section (2)(a)(ii) of Section 149, have to be proved to have been committed by the
insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving
licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third
parties. To avoid its liability towards
insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy
regarding use of vehicles by duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time.
MAC. APP. 306/2009 Page 12 of 24 (iv) The insurance companies are, however, with a view to avoid their liability must not only establish the available defence(s)
raised in the said proceedings but must also establish 'breach' on the part of the owner of the vehicle; the burden of proof where for would be on them.
(v) The court cannot lay down any criteria as to how said burden would be discharged, inasmuch as the same would depend upon
the facts and circumstance of each case.
(vi) Even where the insurer is able to prove breach on the part of the insured concerning the policy condition regarding holding of a valid licence by the driver or his
qualification to drive during the relevant period, the insurer would not be allowed to avoid its liability towards insured unless the said breach or breaches on the condition of driving licence is/ are so fundamental as are found to have contributed to the cause of the accident. The Tribunals in interpreting the policy conditions would apply "the rule of main purpose" and the concept of
"fundamental breach" to allow defences
available to the insured under Section
149(2) of the Act.
(vii) The question as to whether the owner has taken reasonable care to find out as to whether the driving licence produced by the driver, (a fake one or otherwise), does not
MAC. APP. 306/2009 Page 13 of 24 fulfil the requirements of law or not will have to be determined in each case.
(viii) If a vehicle at the time of accident was driven by a person having a learner's
licence, the insurance companies would be liable to satisfy the decree."
16. It will be apposite at this stage to take a look at the provisions
of law relevant for deciding the controversy in the present case.
Section 2 (10) defines a driving licence as follows:
Section 2 Clause (10):- "driving licence" means the licence issued by a competent authority under Chapter II authorizing the person specified therein to drive, otherwise than as a learner, a motor vehicle or a motor vehicle of any specified class of description;
17. The definitions of light motor vehicle and motor cycle which
are set out in Clause (21) and Clause (27) of Section 2 read as follows:
Section 2 Clause (21):- "light motor vehicle" means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed 7,500 kilograms;
Section 2 Clause (27):- "motor cycle" means a two-wheeled motor vehicle, inclusive of any detachable side-car having an extra wheel, attached to the motor vehicle;
MAC. APP. 306/2009 Page 14 of 24
18. Sections 3, 4 and 5 contained in Chapter II deal with the
necessity for driving licence and mandate that:
"3. Necessity for driving licence.-(1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorizing him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle other than a motor cab or motorcycle hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under sub- section (2) of Section 75 unless his driving licence specifically entitles him to do so.
(2) The conditions subject to which sub-section (1) shall not apply to a person receiving instructions in driving a motor vehicle shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government.
4. Age limit in connection with driving of motor vehicles.-(1) No person under the age of eighteen years shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place.
Provided that a motor cycle with engine
capacity not exceeding 50cc may be driven in a public place by a person after attaining the age of sixteen years.
(2) Subject to the provisions of section 18, no person under the age of twenty years shall drive a transport vehicle in any public place.
(3) No learner‟s licence or driving licence shall be issued to any person to drive a vehicle of the class to which he has made an application unless he is eligible to drive that class of vehicle under this section.
5. Responsibility of owners of motor vehicles for contravention of sections 3 and 4.- No owner or person in charge of a motor vehicle shall cause or
MAC. APP. 306/2009 Page 15 of 24 permit any person who does not satisfy the provisions of section 3 or section 4 to drive the vehicle."
19. Cumulatively read the aforesaid provisions of law make it
incumbent upon a person driving a motor vehicle in any public place
to hold a valid and effective driving licence issued to him by the
Competent Authority under Chapter II, authorizing him to drive the
motor vehicle of the class specified in the licence. It is also clear that
a light motor vehicle has been classified as a separate and distinct
class of vehicle than a motorcycle, which is a two wheeled motor
vehicle as opposed to a light motor vehicle which means a transport
vehicle or omni bus the gross weight of either of which, or motor car
or tractor or road roller, the unladen weight of any of which, does not
exceed 7,500 kilograms. While Clause 21 defines a light motor
vehicle, the definition of a motorcycle is as contained in Clause 27.
Thus, the two categories of vehicles must be held to be separate and
distinct. Even otherwise, it stands to reason that the expertise which is
required to drive a motorcycle is quite different from the know-how
required by a person for driving a light motor vehicle, that is to say, it
MAC. APP. 306/2009 Page 16 of 24 cannot be assumed that every person who is competent to drive LMV,
will be skilled in driving a two-wheeler as well.
20. Having arrived at the conclusion that the respondent No.2 was
not holding a valid and effective driving licence, the only question
which remains to be examined is whether there was a wilful breach on
the part of the insured in allowing her son to drive the motorcycle
owned and insured by her. R1W1 Mikul Bedi, who was the driver of
the offending motorcycle, examined himself in the witness box and
stated that he was driving the motorcycle belonging to his mother for
which he was holding an L.M.V. licence. The insured, who was the
owner of the motor vehicle, did not examine herself to state whether
there was no wilful breach of the policy condition pertaining to
driving licence on her part. R3W2, an official from the concerned
Transport Authority, who proved on record the driving licence of the
respondent No.2 for driving LMV (NT), in the course of his
statement, clearly stated that the respondent No.2 was not authorized
to drive a motorcycle/two-wheeler under the driving licence held by
MAC. APP. 306/2009 Page 17 of 24
21. In view of the aforesaid evidence on record, the inescapable
conclusion, in my opinion, is that the insured-owner must be held
guilty of deliberate breach of contract between him and the appellant.
I am fortified in coming to the aforesaid conclusion from the decision
of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of United India Insurance
Company Limited v. Rakesh Kumar Arora and Others, (2008) 13
SCC 298. In the said case, the driver of the offending vehicle was a
minor on the date of the accident and was not holding any driving
licence. The insurer on the said ground denied its liability to
reimburse the vehicle owner. The Tribunal while determining the
issue of liability opined that the Insurance Company was not liable for
payment of the amount of compensation to the claimants. However,
an appeal filed against the said order was allowed by a learned Single
Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court as follows:
"After considering the rival contentions of the parties, I am of the opinion that the material point for determination is whether there was any breach of contract between the owner of the vehicle and the Insurance company. If the breach is committed on behalf of the vehicle, certainly the Insurance Company has a case. In order to bring the case within the mischief of
MAC. APP. 306/2009 Page 18 of 24 „breach‟ it has to be proved that there was a willful default on the part of the insured. I have already stated above that no sane father would like to give the custody or keys of the vehicle to his minor son aged fourteen years, much less to the friend of the minor. Had Rakesh Kumar Arora parted the possession of the vehicle to his son he would have contemplated very easily that by doing so he would have incited the trouble. The Hon'ble Supreme Court 1987
while interpreting the expression „breach‟ came to the conclusion that if it is proved on the record that the owner of the vehicle had done every thing in his power to keep, honour, and fulfil the promise, in such a situation he cannot be held guilty of a deliberate breach. There is no evidence on the record to indicate that the owner of the vehicle parted the keys of the vehicle to his son deliberately or knowingly. If in the absence of the father the son takes the keys of the vehicle and drives the vehicle for fun and causes accident, it cannot be said that there was an express or implied consent on the part of the owner. The judgments which have been relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company may not be any assistance to him for the simple reason that in the said judgments it has proved prima facie that there was a breach of contract on the part of the insured."
22. A Letters Patent Appeal having been filed thereagainst, the
Division Bench of the High Court by reason of the impugned
judgment dismissed the said appeal and upheld the decision of the
MAC. APP. 306/2009 Page 19 of 24 learned Single Judge, relying upon some precedents viz. V.
Mepherson v. Shiv Charan Singh, 1998 ACJ 601 (Del) and Skandia
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kokilaben Chandravadan, (1987) 2 SCC 654.
23. The Supreme Court, allowing the appeal and setting aside the
aforesaid judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana (which
has been heavily relied upon by the counsel for the respondents No.2
and 3), held as follows:
"9. Section 4 of the Motor Vehicles Act
prohibits driving of a vehicle by any person under the age of eighteen years in any public place. Section 5 of the Act imposes a statutory responsibility upon the owners of the motor vehicles not to cause or permit any person who does not satisfy the provisions of Sections 3 or 4 to drive the vehicle.
10. The vehicle in question admittedly was being driven by Karan Arora who was aged about fifteen years. The Tribunal, as noticed hereinbefore, in our opinion, rightly held that Karan Arora did not hold any valid licence on the date of accident, namely 5-2-1997.
11. The learned single Judge as also the Division Bench of the High Court did not put unto themselves a correct question of law. They proceeded on a wrong premise that it was for the Insurance Company to prove breach of conditions of the contract of insurance.
MAC. APP. 306/2009 Page 20 of 24
12. The High Court did not advert to itself the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the Motor Vehicles Act and thus misdirected itself in law.
13. This aspect of the matter has been
considered by this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Prithvi Raj (2008) 2 SCC 338 wherein upon taking into consideration a large number of decisions, it was held that the Insurance Company was not liable, stating: (SCC p.349, para 9)
"9. In the instant case, the State
Commission has categorically found that
the evidence on record clearly
established that the licensing authority had not issued any license, as was
claimed by the driver and the respondent. The evidence of Shri A.V.V. Rajan,
Junior Assistant of the Office of the Jt. Commissioner and Secretary, RTA,
Hyderabad who produced the official
records clearly established that no
driving license was issued to Shri
Ravinder Kumar or Ravinder Singh in
order to enable and legally permit him to drive a motor vehicle. There was no
cross-examination of the said witness.
The National Commission also found that
there was no defect in the finding
recorded by the State Commission in this regard."
14. Yet again, this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kaushalaya Devi (2008) 8 SCC 246 took the same view stating: (SCC pp.248- 49, paras 10-11)
"10. The provisions relating to the
necessity of having a license to drive a
MAC. APP. 306/2009 Page 21 of 24 vehicle are contained in Section 3, 4 and 10 of the Act. As various aspects of the said provisions vis-a-vis the liability of the Insurance Company to reimburse the
owner in respect of a claim of a third
party as provided in Section 149 thereof have been dealt with in several decisions, it is not necessary for us to reiterate the same once over again. Suffice it to notice some of the precedents operating in the
11. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297 this
Court held: (SCC p.336, paras 88-89)
„88. Section 10 of the Act provides
for forms and contents of licences to
drive. The licence has to be granted
in the prescribed form. Thus, a
licence to drive a light motor vehicle
would entitle the holder thereof to
drive the vehicle falling within that
class or description.
89. Section 3 of the Act casts an
obligation on a driver to hold an
effective driving licence for the type
of vehicle which he intends to drive.
Section 10 of the Act enables the
Central Government to prescribe
forms of driving licences for various
categories of vehicles mentioned in
sub-section (2) of the said section.‟
It was furthermore observed: (SCC
p.337, paras 90-91)
„90. We have construed and
determined the scope of sub-clause
(ii) of sub-section (2)(a) of Section
MAC. APP. 306/2009 Page 22 of 24 149 of the Act, Minor breaches of
licence conditions, such as want of
medical fitness certificate, requirement about age of the driver
and the like not found to have been
the direct cause of the accident,
would be treated as minor breaches
of inconsequential deviation in the
matter of use of vehicles. Such
minor and inconsequential
deviations with regard to licensing
conditions would not constitute
sufficient ground to deny the benefit
of coverage of insurance to the third
91. On all pleas of breach of
licensing conditions taken by the
insurer, it would be open to the
Tribunal to adjudicate the claim and
decide inter se liability of insurer
and insured; although where such
adjudication is likely to entail undue
delay in decision of the claim of the
victim, the Tribunal in its discretion
may relegate the insurer to seek its
remedy of reimbursement from the
insured in the civil court.‟
The decision in Swaran Singh, however,
was held to be not applicable in relation to the owner or a passenger of a vehicle which is insured."
24. In view of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncement of the
Supreme Court, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. Since
MAC. APP. 306/2009 Page 23 of 24 however, notice in the appeal was issued to the respondents No.2 and
3 on the limited question as to whether the appellant is entitled to
recovery rights against the respondents No.2 and 3 and since no stay
was granted by this Court to the appellant in respect of the award
amount, it is directed that the appellant shall be entitled to recover the
amount in question from the respondents No.2 and 3 in accordance
25. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
July 18 , 2011
MAC. APP. 306/2009 Page 24 of 24