This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the award which contains a direction to the Insurance Company to pay compensation to the claimants and recover the same from the first respondent / Insurer. The only question that arises in this appeal is whether such a direction is legally tenable or not. The answer is not far to seek A Full Bench of this Court in Nagammal and others Vs. Unnamalai and another in 2009(1)TN MAC'1 (FB) had declared the law in the following words:
?(iv) No such direction can be issued by any Trial Court to the Insurance Company to pay and recover relating to liability in respect of a passenger travelling in a goods vehicle after the decision in Baljit Kaur's case merely because the date of accident was before such decision. The date of the accident is immaterial. Since the law has been specifically clarified, no Trial Court is expected to decide contrary to such decision.?
2. In the light of the above, the direction to the Insurance Company to pay the compensation with liberty to recover the same from the insurer should not have been issued by the Tribunal. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part. The direction to pay the recovery alone is set aside and other portions of the award of the Tribunal are confirmed. It appears that the Insurance Company has deposited the compensation in pursuant to the order of this Court. It is at liberty to withdraw any amount deposited by it from the Tribunal. In view of the legal possession enunciated by the Full Bench, the cross objection is also dismissed.
3. With the above direction, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. The cross objection is dismissed.
To The Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Karur..