JUDGMENT - KAMAT G.D., J.:---Respondent 1 in Claims Petition No. 8/83 succeeded in obtaining an order for compensation under section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. This order of payment of compensation is challenged in the present appeal by the appellant Insurers. The claim petition filed by the first respondent before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Margao is yet to be decided on merits.

2. In his application under section 92-A respondent 1 mentions that his right lower limb gets swollen very often and the full right lower limb is paralysed on account of improper circulation of blood. In his claim petition he has listed several injuries that are caused to him as a result of the accident namely fracture of right humerus; fracture of middle mallealus; fracture of left clevicle; fracture of right wrist bone; fracture of right shin bone; dislocation of right ankle; dislocation of right knee; injury and a deep wound on the right thigh; injury and a deep wound on the left and back side of head and internal haemorrhage. Respondents 2 and 3 the driver and the owner respectively of the vehicle involved in the accident have denied the injuries and have put the claimant to strict proof in relation thereto. In the written statement filed by the Insurer it is their case that although the motor cycle bearing registration number plate GDF-7343 is involved in the accident at the relevant time it was being driven by respondent 1 without a valid licence and therefore they have denied their liability to pay any compensation, thereby refusing to indemnify the owner respondent 3.

3. Insofar as the present order is concerned, Shri H.R. Bharne, learned Counsel for the Insurer has challenged the same mainly on three grounds.

4. Coming to challenge No. 1 he mentions that the Tribunal has made the impugned order without holding any inquiry into the nature of the injuries and therefore without determining whether injuries sustained have caused permanent disablement to the Claimant/respondent 1. It is his case that amended Rule 18 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Rules, 1966 casts a duty on the Tribunal to hold at least some sort of summary inquiry and a finding must be rendered whether the injuries have led to permanent disablement and it is only then that the Tribunal can order payment of compensation under section 92-A. As against this Shri Rebello, learned Counsel for the claimant has contended before me that the Insurer ought to be confined to only certain challenges. Referring to section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act he points out that only limited defences are available to the Insurer and it is not open to the Insurer to challenge the injuries sustained by the victim of an accident. It is therefore urged that the appellant insurer cannot be heard on this question in this appeal and it is further mentioned that the person who could have challenged the injuries are respondents 2 and 3 who have not chosen to file any appeal against the impugned order. It must be stated that the objection by Shri Rebello is well taken and in view of the limited defences available to the Insurer their challenge even insofar as the Award is concerned ought to be limited and it is not open tot he Insurer to challenge the impugned order on that score in the present appeal.

5. The second challenge by Shri Bharne is that under section 92-A of the Act there is no liability cast on the Insurer to make any compensation. Placing reliance on the very section he points out that it has been clearly stated that only the owner of the vehicle is made liable and insurer is excluded. He urges that if it had been he intention of the legislator to make Insurer liable under section 92-A the very section would have mentioned 'the owner of the vehicle and/or the Insurer'. He therefore urges that inasmuch as section 92-A contemplates no fault liability the burden of making peremptory compensation under that section is clearly left to the owner of the vehicle and not to the Insurer.

6.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document