HARI NATH TILHARI, J.

( 1 ) HEARD Mr. S. P. Shankar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S. V. Tilgul, learned counsel for the respondents. The respondents had also applied for being permitted to withdraw the amount, but Mr. Tilgul wanted the appeal to be disposed of and raised the preliminary objections to the maintainability of the appeal itself under section 30 of the Workmen 's Compensation Act read with section 149 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, for short, 'the WC Act' and 'mv Act' respectively.

( 2 ) MR. Tilgul, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the present appeal has been filed by the insurance company alone and the grounds for challenge relate only to the quantum of the compensation awarded. He submitted that in view of section 149 (2), the defences open to the insurance companies are likely those which relate to the liability of the company or extent of the liability of the company under insurance policy which circumscribes the ground on which the insurance company can resist the claim made before the authority dealing with the motor accidents claims compensation. He submitted the grounds on which the award can be challenged by the insurance company as well are limited and controlled or provided by section 149 (2) of MV Act because a person cannot be deemed to be aggrieved by finding with respect to the defences not available to him. Mr. Tilgul submitted, as such the defences available are limited, and so appeal under section 30 of the WC Act can be maintainable, provided it satisfies the two grounds. Firstly, that the ground of challenge to the award is based on one of those defences which are available to it under section 149 (2) and secondly it must raise a substantial question of law. Mr. Tilgul submitted that in the present case, what has been challenged is the quantum of compensation awarded. He submitted that what is the cause for accident or what is the quantum of the compensation to be awarded is not within the scope of defences available to the insurer, though no doubt in respect of cause for accident, or in respect of quantum of compensation, it is open to the insured to challenge. As such he submitted that the appeal challenging only the quantum of compensation awarded, is not maintainable and is no appeal in the eyes of law and so the appeal may be dismissed as not maintainable.

( 3 ) THE contentions of Mr. Tilgul have been hotly contested by Mr. S. P. Shankar, learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. Shankar submitted that right of appeal under section 30 of the WC Act is to be taken independent of the Motor Vehicles act and the provisions of Workmen's Compensation act are not controlled by section 149 (2) of MV Act. He submitted that all grounds which raise or involve substantial question of law are available to the appellant insurer as the final liability to pay compensation falls on the insurance company. That there is nothing in section 30 to restrict the rights of insurance company to challenge the award on the grounds of defence covered by section 149 (2) of motor Vehicles Act.

( 4 ) I have applied my mind to these contentions raised by the counsel for the parties. Sections 149 (2) and 149 (7) are analogous to sections 96 (2) and 96 (6) of mv Act, 1939. Sections 96 (2) and 96 (6) have been the subject-matter of consideration before their Lordships of the Supreme court in the case British India General insurance Co. Ltd. v. Captain Itbar Singh, 1958-65 ACJ 1 (SC), in which almost the same contention was advanced on behalf of the insurance company and their Lordships of the Supreme Court considered the scheme of sections 96 (2) and 96 (6 ). In paras 5, 6 and 9, their Lordships observed that:"to start with it is necessary to remember that apart from the statute an insurer has no right to be made a party to the action by the injured person against the insured causing the injury. Sub-section (2) of section 96 however gives him the right to be made a party to the suit and to defend i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document