This is an appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 directed against the impugned judgment and order passed on 28.7.99 by learned Presiding Officer, MACT, Aizwal in MACT Case No.86/97 wherein the appellant was directed to pay a sum of Rs.6,57,600/- to the claimant as compensation.

2. I have heard Mr. G. Raju, the learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. AR Malhotra, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2 is the owner of the Maruti Taxi MZ 01/6891 which met with an accident in between Selesih and Sihphir on 31.5.97 around 6 PM causing the death of the husband of the respondent No. 1 who was one of the passengers. The claimant respondent No 1 filed a claim petition before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aizawl claiming a Rs. 17,82,000 (Rupees seventeen lakhs eighty two thousand) as compensation for the death of her husband. The said claim petition was registered as MACT Case No.86/97. The present appellant insurance company as opposite party No.2 contested the claim by filing a written statement. After considering the evidence on record and hearing the learned counsel for the parties learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aizawl awarded an amount of Rs.6,57,600/- as # final compensation to the claimant respondent No. 1, and the appellant was directed to pay the amount within a period of one month, failing which to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation. Hence this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before this Court.

4. At the outset Mr. Malhotra, learned counsel for the respondents has raised a technical objection that this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is not maintainable since the appellant did not invoke the provisions of section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and that he cannot file this appeal except on the grounds enumerated in sub-section (2) of the section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act. On perusal of the memorandum of appear, I have found this appeal has not been preferred on the grounds so enumerated. In support of his contention Mr. Malhotra has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Shankarayya & another vs. United India Insurance Co Ltd & another reported in (1998) 3 SCC 140 wherein it has been held:

“It clearly shows that the insurance company when impleaded as a party by the Court can be permitted to contest the proceedings on merits only if the conditions precedent mentioned in the section are found to be satisfied and for that purpose the insurance company has to obtain order in writing from the Tribunal and which should be a reasoned order by the Tribunal. Unless that procedure is followed, the insurance company cannot have a wider defence on merits than what is available to it by way of statutory defence. It is true that the claimants themselves had joined respondent 1, insurance company in the claim petition but that was done with a view to thrust the statutory liability on the insurance company on account of the contract of the insurance. That was not an order of the Court itself permitting the insurance company which was impleaded to avail of a larger defence on merits on being satisfied on the aforesaid two condition mentioned in. section 170. Consequently, it must be held that on the facts of the present case respondent I, insurance company was not entitled to file an appeal on merits of the claim which was awarded by the Tribunal.”

5. Mr. Malhotra, learned counsel for the respondents has referred to a decision of this Court reported in 1999 (2) GLT 235 which has referred to the above mentioned decision of the Supreme Court. Another decision of this Court referred to by Mr. Malhotra is one reported in 1999 (1) GLT 440 (1999 (2) GLJ 217) wherein it has been held:

“It is now to be considered whether the appeal preferred by the Oriental insuranc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document