IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Appeal – Insurance Company when impleaded as a respondent in claim petition has right to contest claim on all available grounds, without any restriction to grounds available under Section 149(2) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
(2) Any rejection of application can always be impugned with final order.

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant/Insurance Company has filed the present appeal challenging the order [Dated 01.07.2022 in First Appeal No.129/2015] passed by the High Court [High Court of Bombay, Bench at Goa].

3. Briefly the facts available on record are that a vehicle bearing Registration No. GA-06D-0962, which was insured with the appellant/Company, met with an accident on 28.12.2010, as a result of which one Santana De Melo died. Master Frewin Seby de Melo, being the minor son of the deceased, filed the claim petition [Claim Petition No.158/2011] before the Tribunal [Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Goa, at Margao] which was allowed vide award dated 03.01.2015. The Tribunal assessed the compensation at Rs.1,89,45,000/-. It was claimed that the deceased was working as a seaman (Assistant Waiter) with the Celebrity Cruises Inc., Caribbean Way, Miami, Florida, on a monthly salary of 3,000 USD. During the pendency of the said claim petition, the appellant/Company filed an application before the Tribunal under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [For short, ‘The 1988 Act’], praying for granting permission to take defence of collusion available under the 1988 Act, on the ground that the driver is a family friend and the owner of the vehicle is the mother of the claimant and widow of the deceased, however, the same was not decided by the Tribunal.

3.1 Satisfied with the Award of the Tribunal, the claimants did not challenge the same, however, aggrieved against the Award, the appellant/Company preferred appeal before the High Court. The quantum of compensation was also sought to be challenged. The High Court vide order dated 29.04.2022 remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for the limited purpose of deciding the application under Section 170 of the 1988 Act and also directed the Tribunal to resend the records to the High Court after disposal of the same. The Tribunal vide order dated 13.06.2022 dismissed the application of the appellant/Company filed under Section 170 of the 1988 Act.

3.2 Thereafter, the High Court, as noticed above, dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant/Company vide order dated 01.07.2022. It is this order, which is impugned before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant/Company submitted that the impugned order of the High Court is erroneous in law whereby the appellant/Company has been deprived of challenging the award of the Tribunal on quantum of compensation. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of this Court in United India Insurance Company Limited v. Shila Datta and others, (2011) 10 SCC 509 and the consequent orders passed by this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Krishna Sakharam Baing and Ors. [C.A. No. 252 of 2025 Etc.; MANU/SCOR/52757/2022] and Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Kamla Sen, C.A. No. 9427 of 2013; MANU/SC/1379/2013. He further submitted that the High Court ignored the enunciation of law by this Court in Shila Datta’s case (supra), (2011) 10 SCC 509 which clearly laid down that the Insurance Company has right to challenge the award of the Tribunal on all available grounds, without any restriction to grounds available under Section 149(2) of the 1988 Act. Any contrary view taken by a two-Judge Bench of this Court will not have any legal force as the judgment in Shila Datta’s case (supra) is of a bench consisting of three Hon’ble judges. He prayed for setting aside the order of the High Court and remitting the case back for decision afresh on assessment of quantum of compensation. It was further submitted that the income of the deceased was not appropriately proved. He was not working continuously for the entire year and the salary being drawn by him was also in dispute. In fact it was a case of connivance between the parties.

5. In response, learned counsel for the respondent fairly submitted that the law laid down by this Court in Shila Datta’s case (supra) is not in dispute. In the case in hand, the appellant/Company was made party.