SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(SC) 1411

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PANKAJ MITHAL AND AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.
New india assurance co. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Krishna Sakharam Baing And Others - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 252 of 2025 (@ SLP (Civil) No. 8195 of 2022) with Civil Appeal No. 253 of 2025 (@ SLP (Civil) No. 11288 of 2022) and Civil Appeal No. 254 of 2025 (@ SLP (Civil) No. 15880 of 2022)
Decided on : 08-01-2025

Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 149(2) and Section 170 - The issue is whether the Insurance Company, voluntarily added by claimants, can contest the claim on all grounds, including those in Section 149(2) - The court ruled that the insurer can raise any grounds available under law without limitation imposed by Section 149(2) when voluntarily impleaded by the claimants. (Paras 4, 6, 8)

Facts of the case:
The Insurance Company was added as a party by the claimants in the claim petition. The High Court dismissed the company's appeal on the grounds of not obtaining permission to contest under Section 170.

Findings of Court:
The High Court's dismissal of the appeal based on non-compliance with Section 170 is erroneous; the Insurance Company is entitled to argue all relevant grounds.

Issues: The main issue was whether the Insurance Company could contest beyond the limitations of Section 149(2) when voluntarily included in the claim.

Ratio Decidendi: The insurer can contest on all legal grounds if added voluntarily by the claimants, as affirmed by precedent.

Result: The impugned orders are set aside and remanded to the High Court for fresh decision.

Table of Content
1. insurance company's rights in claim petitions. (Para 3 , 4)
2. permitting insurers to contest claims and required permissions. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. conclusion and remand for fresh decision. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)

ORDER :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Leave granted.

3. The sole issue which has been raised in these appeals is whether the Insurance Company who has been voluntarily impleaded by the claimants in the claim petition is entitled to raise all grounds to oppose the claim petition rather than confining to the grounds referred to under Section 149(2) of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988[For short 'the Act'].

4. The High Court has dismissed the appeal of the Insurance Company only on the ground that it had not taken permission under Section 170 of the Act and, therefore, it is not open to it to contest the matter on merits.

5. The issue which has been raised herein appears to be fully covered by the 3-Judges' Bench decision of this Court in United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Shila Datta and Ors. , (2011) 10 SCC 509

6. In paragraph 19 of the aforesaid citation, it has been clearly laid down that where the insurer is a party-respondent, either on account of being impleaded as a party by the Tribunal under Section 170 or being impleaded as a party-respondent by the claimants in the claim petition voluntarily, it will be entitled to contest the matter by raising all grounds available to it in law, without any limitation placed under Section 149(2) of the Act.

7. In the case at hand, admittedly, the claimants themselves have added the Insurance Company as a party respondent voluntarily entitling it to raise all grounds including those available under Section 149(2) of the Act.

8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the High Court fell in error in non-suiting the appellant on the ground that since permission under Section 170 of the Act was not taken, the Insurance Company is not entitled to raise other grounds to resist the claim independent of grounds contained in Section 149(2) of the Act.

9. Accordingly, the impugned orders are not sustainable and are hereby set aside. The matters are remanded to the High Court for decision afresh of the appeals on merits by allowing the appellant to raise and argue all points available to it under the law including those covered under Section 149(2) of the Act.

10. The High Court will make full endeavor to decide the appeals on remand as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of nine months from the date, a copy of the order is produced before it.

11. The appeals are allowed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top