Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
Kailash Gambhir, J.
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Appellant
Vs.
MRS. V. VISHALAKSHY AND OTHERS - Respondent
MAC APP No. 566 of 2004
Decided on : 25-02-2008
For the Appellant : Shantha Devi Raman
For the Respondent: Hem C. Vashisht
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the insurer cannot file an appeal to challenge the quantum of compensation or findings of the Tribunal without seeking permission as required under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation - 170 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 149(2), Section 170 - The court discussed the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, particularly Section 149(2) and Section 170, and their interpretation in relation to the right of the insurer to challenge the quantum of compensation or findings of the Tribunal. The court emphasized that the insurer cannot file an appeal to challenge the quantum of compensation or findings of the Tribunal without seeking permission as required under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The judgment also referred to various precedents, including National Insurance Co. Ltd., Chandigarh Vs. Nicolletta Rohtagi and Others, and highlighted the statutory defenses available to the insurer.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a motor vehicle accident claim where the appellant sought to challenge the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The appellant, an insurer, argued that the Tribunal had no power to award compensation over and above the amount claimed in the claim petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant, as the insurer, cannot maintain the appeal without seeking permission as required under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It emphasized that the right of appeal is a creature of statute and discussed the statutory defenses available to the insurer under Section 149(2) of the Act.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant, as the insurer, could challenge the quantum of compensation without seeking permission as required under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant cannot maintain the appeal without seeking permission as required under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It emphasized the statutory defenses available to the insurer under Section 149(2) of the Act and referred to various precedents to support its decision.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed by the court.
JUDGMENT :
Kailash Gambhir, J.
1. By way of the present appeal, the appellant seeks to challenge the impugned award dated 21/9/2004 assailing the findings of the Tribunal on the quantum of compensation. The brief summary of facts to deal with the contentions of the parties, are as under:
Master V. Mani aged 16 years studying in class XII in DTEA School, Laxmi Bai Nagar, New Delhi suffered fatal injuries on 22.9.1999 at about 1:30 pm at the crossing of Ring Road and Andrews Ganj. On the said date he was traveling in bus bearing registration No. DEP-2010 and was going to his residence from his school. He was standing near the gate with other passengers. When the bus reached near the crossing of Ring Road and Andrews Ganj, another bus bearing registration No. DEP-8748 was already standing at the red light signal at the crossing. Sh. Dalveer Singh while driving the offending bus rashly and negligently hit the already stationary bus on its right side while trying to overtake and go ahead. As a result thereof, the deceased, Master V. Mani sustained fatal injuries. He was removed to AIIMS Hospital, where he was declared as brought dead.
2. The Tribunal after taking into consideration the facts of the case as well as evidence led by the parties had passed an award in the sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum payable from the date of the institution of the petition till the realization of the award. The said order passed by the Tribunal is now under challenge in the present appeal.
3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties at considerable length and have perused the award.
4. The main plank of argument raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal has no power to award compensation over and above the amount as claimed in the claim petition. In support of her arguments, counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the Full Bench Judgment of Gujarat High Court report in Dr. Urmila J. Sangani Vs. Pragjibhai Mohanlal Luvana and Others.
5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that there is a judicial error committed by the Tribunal, and Therefore, the present appeal filed by the appellant even in the absence of permission being taken u/s 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, is maintainable.
6. The appellant failed to take over the defense of the owner and driver as envisaged u/s 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act and, Therefore, is debarred from challenging the impugned award so as to assail the findings of the Tribunal on the quantum of compensation.
7. Mr. Hem C. Vashisht, counsel appearing for the respondents has taken a preliminary objection to the very maintainability of the present appeal on the ground that the appellant cannot assail the findings of the Tribunal on the quantum of compensation as determined by the Tribunal. Counsel contends that the appellant had not made an application to take over the defense of the owner and driver as envisaged u/s 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act and, Therefore, is debarred from challenging the impugned award so as to assail the findings of the Tribunal on the quantum of compensation.
8. Ms. Shantha Devi Raman, counsel for the appellant strongly disputes this position and contends that the insurer cannot be rendered remedlyless especially in a case where the Tribunal has awarded an excessive amount of compensation in favor of the claimants ignoring all basic principles of law for the award of compensation. Counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Shanti Pathak and Others, to contend that the Apex Court had interfered to lower down the compensation amount even in a case where the insurer had not taken any permission from the Court u/s 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
9. The counsel for the appellant also drew my attention to the order dated 03/12/2007 of the Honble Apex Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shila Datta and Ors. in SLP (C
