Back
H.L.DATTU, R.V.RAVEENDRAN, K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Shila Datta – Respondent
Key Points: - Judgment clarifies that an insurer as noticee can contest only on grounds in section 149(2) while not denying liability on other grounds; and may assist in arriving at just compensation (p_17, p_18, p_92) (!) (!) (!) . - If insurer is impleaded as a party-respondent, it can contest on all grounds available to the insured, not limited to section 149(2) grounds (p_8, p_9, p_48, p_49, p_11) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Maintenability and propriety of joint appeals by owner and insurer; insurer’s presence does not automatically render the appeal not maintainable; but permissibility depends on grounds available to insurer under section 149(2) and pleadings (p_12, p_13, p_83, p_85, p_86) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The court indicates Nicolletta Rohtagi requires reconsideration on insurer’s right to contest and directs referral to larger bench for points (iii)-(v) relating to insurer rights beyond section 149(2) (p_69, p_70, p_101, p_103, p_104) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Proceedings before Tribunals involve statutory determination of compensation, not adversarial litigation, with notice to insurer under section 149(2) and potential impleadment under section 170 (p_54, p_58, p_46, p_48) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Section 170 permits impleading the insurer when there is collusion or non-contest, enabling contest on grounds available to insured (p_48, p_46, p_11) (!) (!) (!) . - Appeals under section 173 allow aggrieved party to challenge Tribunal awards within 90 days, with deposit requirements for the paying party (p_50, p_51) (!) (!) . - The Act creates liability on insurer to satisfy judgments, subject to grounds in section 149(2), but insurer may contest quantum (p_21, p_92) (!) (!) . - The judgment concludes with a bifurcation: points (i)-(ii) in favor of insurers; points (iii)-(v) referred for larger bench consideration (p_103, p_104) (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT
R.V.Raveendran, J. —
A Two Judge Bench of this Court made the following order of reference in this case on 3.12.2007:
“One of the contentions raised in these appeals is the correctness of a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd., Chandigarh vs. Nicolletta Rohtagi and Ors., - 2002 (7) SCC 456, which is said to be pending consideration in a large number of cases before this Court. Assailing the correctness of the aforesaid decision Mr. Atul Nanda submits that therein the liability of the insurer to reimburse the insured on two premises, namely, (1) just compensation; and (2) whose liability would be to pay, as envisaged under sub-section (1) of section 149 vis-`- vis the right of the aggrieved persons (Which would include the insured) to prefer an appeal in terms of section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, had not been considered in the backdrop of the history in which sub-section (1) of section 149 was enacted.
Apart from the question raised by Mr. Nanda, we are of the opinion that the matter may be considered from other angles, namely, whether the insurer shall be wholly without any remedy even if the amount of compensation is determined in v
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
