Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ABHAY AHUJA J.
The Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Shri Intaj Mainuddin Shaikh – Respondent
First Appeal No. 1285 of 2022
Decided on : 12-06-2023
Motor Vehicle Act - Appeal - Section 140 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and Section 173(2) related to the minimum amount required for filing an appeal. The court highlighted the amendment to Section 173(2) and emphasized that unless the amount involved in the dispute is at least One lakh rupees, no appeal is maintainable under this provision of the M. V. Act.
Fact of the Case:
The appeal challenged an order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mumbai in an application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. The Respondents had filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act claiming compensation on account of an injury in an accident and also filed an application under Section 140 seeking compensation of Rs. 25,000 under the Principle of No Fault Liability.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appeal was not maintainable as the amount involved in the dispute was Rs. 25,000, which was below the threshold limit of Rs. 1,00,000. The court dismissed the appeal and granted liberty to the appellant to take up the grounds in the pending petition before the Tribunal.
Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the appeal based on the amount involved in the dispute and the applicability of Section 173(2) of the MV Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that unless the amount involved in the dispute is at least One lakh rupees, no appeal is maintainable under Section 173(2) of the MV Act.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed as not maintainable, and liberty was granted to the appellant to take up the grounds in the pending petition before the Tribunal.
JUDGMENT :
1. This is an appeal challenging the order dated 26 September 2019 below Exhibit 2 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mumbai (“MACT, Mumbai”) in an application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (the “MV Act”) in Claim Petition No. 849 of 2016 (the “said claim petition”).
2. Earlier the Respondents in the appeal had filed the said claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act claiming compensation on account of an injury in an accident. The Respondents had also filed an application under Section 140 of the MV Act seeking compensation of Rs. 25,000/- under the “Principle of No Fault Liability”. By the impugned order (below Exhibit No.2), the MACT, Mumbai had allowed the application and passed the following order:-
2. I have gone through the copy of FIR bearing Crime No. 169/2015 for the offence punishable U/s 279, 338 of the Indian Penal Code registered against the driver of offending vehicle, copy of insurance policy, disability certificate and medical papers.
3. The copy of FIR admittedly shows that for the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, offence U/s 279, 338 of the Indian Penal Code is registered against the driver. Further the copy of insurance policy is itself evident for showing that the offending vehicle is owned by the opposite party and was insured with the insurer on the day of incident. Moreover the disability certificate discloses that the claimant had susained severe accidental injuries.
4. The insurer has raised various grounds while opposing the application, but I think it is not required to be considered at this stage and can be looked into at the final hearing of the claim. The present application filed by the claimant U/s 140 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 is for the interim compensation which is totally based on the principle of No Fault Liability. Therefore, taking into consideration the above said peculiar facts and circumstances as well as documents on record the present application deserves to be allowed, so in the result I passed the following order.
ORDER
Application Exh. 2 is allowed.
Opposite party and insurer are directed to pay jointly and severally interim compensation of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) to the claimant, within a period of 30 days from today, failing which they shall pay simple interest @ 7.5% p.a. to the claimant on the said amount from the date of this order till its realisation.
The amount of interim compensation if deposited by the opponents as above, it be paid to the claimant by Account payee cheque, as per rules, on due verification” (emphasis supplied)
3. Being aggrieved by the said order the insurance company has filed this appeal on the grounds mentioned therein.
4. Mr. Gangal, learned Counsel for the Respondents submits that pursuant to Section 173(2) of the MV Act, there is a minimum amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- in respect of which an appeal can be filed against the award of the Claims Tribunal. He would submit that the amount involved in this appeal is only Rs. 25,000/- and as such this appeal is not maintainable. Learned Counsel draws the attention of this Court to a decision of the Nagpur Bench of this Court in the case of Madhav Vs. Mohd. Ali and Ors., First Appeal No. 521 of 2022 dated 21 October 2022 in support of his contentions. He would submit that in a similar situation in that case, the Court had observed that in view of Section 173 (2) of the MV Act the amount involved in the appeal being less than the threshold of Rs. 1,00,000/- and the appeal was held to be not maintainable and dismissed. He would urge this Court to follow the same course of action in this case as well.
5. On the other hand, Ms. Trivedi, learned Counsel for the Appellant- Insurance Company would submit that until and unless orde
The main legal point established in the judgment is that unless the amount involved in the dispute is at least One lakh rupees, no appeal is maintainable under Section 173(2) of the MV Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that unless the amount involved in the dispute is at least One lakh rupees, no appeal is maintainable under Section 173(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appeal against an order under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act is not maintainable if the amount in dispute is below the threshold li....
The appeal against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award is not maintainable if the compensation amount is below one lakh rupees.
The disputed amount in the appeal, not the amount awarded, determines the maintainability under sec. 173(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
An insurer cannot challenge a compensation award on merits, including quantum and negligence, unless the tribunal has explicitly granted permission under the relevant statutory provisions. Absent suc....
The main legal point established is that the appeal by the Insurance Company questioning the quantum of compensation would not be maintainable in the absence of permission under Sec. 170 of the Motor....
Proceedings under section 140 of the MV Act are summary and provide immediate relief without questioning fault. Findings in such proceedings are not conclusive and do not preclude raising defenses in....
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
