IMPORTANT POINT
Insurance Company is covered by expression "any person aggrieved by an award of Claims Tribunal" under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and is entitled to appeal when it knows that the award is unjust.

Headnote:Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Section 173-Appeals-Meaning of "any person aggrieved by an award of Claims Tribunal"-Claim for compensation of motor accident passed against 5th respondent, the driver of offending vehicle and appellant insurance company-5th respondent not filing an appeal-Insurance Company filing revision under Article 227 of Constitution, assuming it has no right of appeal-Gross violation of principles of National Justice alleged-What is the remedy of the insurance company if it is aggrieved of award passed by MAC?-Appeal or revision? (Appeal)-Revision directed to be treated as appeal-Order accordingly-Meaning of "right to contest" in Section 170 r/w 149(2) of the Act.
       Held : In our view, the stand of the appellant that it cannot file an appeal at all before the High Court under Section 173 of the Act is based on an erroneous assumption. So long as the insured has not challenged the award passed against him and so long as the liability would only fall on the Insurance Company it is inequitable to deny a remedy of appeal to the Insurance Company. (Para 8)
       Held also : We are, therefore, of the view that the insurance company can fall within the ambit of the words "any person aggrieved by an award of a Claims Tribunal" as used in Section 173(1) of the Act, when the insured failed to file an appeal against the award. (Para 10)
       Held further : Right to contest would include the right to contest by filing an appeal against the award of the Tribunal as well. (Para 13)
       Held finally : We, therefore, take the view that it is open to the insurance company to invoke the right under Section 173 of the Act as the insured had failed to appeal against the award passed against him. That being the position, the revision petition filed by the appellant before the High Court should be treated as an appeal petition under Section 173 of the Act. Appellant can be allowed by the High Court to amend the petition to include grounds of appeal etc. It is open to the appellant to move an application before the High Court for that purpose. If any application is filed by the applicant before the High Court for stay of execution of the award the same has to be considered on the merits of it and appropriate orders thereon can be passed. We dispose of this appeal with the above observations. (Paras 15 and 16)

JUDGMENT

Thomas, J.-Leave granted.

2. What is the remedy of the insurance company if it is aggrieved of the award passed by a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short the Claims Tribunal). On the assumption that it cannot file an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act ) the appellant-Insurance Company has chosen to file a revision petition before the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. A motion was made for stay of execution of the award during the pendency of the revision petition, but the High Court has only chosen to issue notice to the opposite parties to show cause why the revision petition cannot be entertained.

3. A claim was made before the Claims Tribunal, Patiala House, New Delhi, by the legal heirs of one Dr. Tulsi Dass Sachdeva for awarding compensation in respect of a motor accident which took place on 27.8.1994. Dr. Tulsi Dass Sachdeva died in the said accident and some of his kith and kin sustained serious injuries therein. The total amount claimed in the petition was Rs. 55.56 lakhs. The Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 12.53 lakhs as compensation to be paid by the 5th respondent Dr. Ramesh Tandon and the appellant Insurance Company, jointly and severally.

4. The claimants averred in the application for compensation filed before the Claims Tribunal that a Maruti Van (No. HR-03-1300) in which the deceased and his wife and relatives were travelling had collided with a Maruti car (No. DL-4C-7741) which was driven by the 5th respondent in a very rash and negligent manner.

5. The 5th respondent Dr. Ramesh Tandon contended before the Claims Tribunal that the accident had happened on account of the rash and negligent driving of the Maruti van and therefore the driver of the Maruti car is to be totally absolved from the fault and hence the owner of the Maruti car has no liability to bear the compensation. Further again it was contended that the amount of compensation claimed in the application was highly excessive and grossly inflated. The Claims Tribunal repelled the contentions of the 5th respondent and passed the award directing the appellant-Insurance Company with whom the Maruti car was insured during the time of accident, to pay the entire compensation amount assessed.

6. The award of the Claims Tribunal was not challenged by the 5th respondent who is the insured-cum-owner of the Maruti car, evidently because he need not pay a single pie towards the awarded sum as the whole brunt of the burden was ordered to be borne by the insurer.

7. According to the appellant-Insurance Company the Tribunal s award was in gross violation of the principles of natural justice laid down by this Court in various judgments and is very unjust and arbitrary. However, as appellant felt that an appeal could not be filed by the insurer in challenge of the award he had chosen to file the revision petition before the High Court.

8. In our view, the stand of the appellant that it cannot file an appeal at all before the High Court under Section 173 of the Act is based on an erroneous assumption. So long as the insured has not challenged the award passed against him and so long as the liability would only fall on the Insurance Company it is inequitable to deny a remedy of appeal to the Insurance Company. We will now see whether Section 173 contains any bar against filing such appeal by the Insurance Company. That section reads thus :

"173. Appeals.-(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) any person aggrieved by an award of a Claims Tribunal may, within ninety days from the date of the award, prefer an appeal to the High Court :

Provided that no appeal by the person who is required to pay any amount in terms of such award shall be entertained by the High Court unless he has deposited with it twenty-five thousand rupees or fifty per cent, of the amount so awarded, whichever is less, in the manner directed by the High Court:

Provided further that the High Court may entertain the appeal after the exp

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 84

IMPORTANT POINTInsurance Company is covered by expression "any person aggrieved by an award of Claims Tribunal" under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and is entitled to appeal when it knows that the award is unjust.

Cases Referred (2)

IMPORTANT POINT
Insurance Company is covered by expression "any person aggrieved by an award of Claims Tribunal" under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and is entitled to appeal when it knows that the award is unjust.