Honble KESHOTE, J.–This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed by the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. though its Constituted Attorney, Jaipur against the final award Annex.3 dated 15.4.1999 in the claim petition filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 4. This matter has come up for preliminary hearing in the Court on 25.10.99. The Court has issued notice to respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to show cause as to why this petition may not be admitted. Thereafter the matter has come up for hearing on admission of the matter today. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 raised a preliminary objection that this petition may not be entertained by this Court as the award which is challenged by the petitioner Insurance Company in this petition is appealable.

(2). Learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand submitted that it is a case where the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal passed the award in total disregard to the statutory provisions as well as the law laid down by the Supreme Court and this petition is maintainable.

(3). I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. I find sufficient force, merits and substance in the preliminary objections raised by the learned counsel for the respondents regarding the maintainability of this petition on the ground of availability of the alternate remedy. When under the statute the appeal is provided against the order challenged in the petition it is statutory obligation on the part of the litigant first to avail of the statutory remedy of appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that against the award made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal the appeal does lie to this Court. What the explanation has been given to circumvent this remedy of appeal which admi- ttedly also lies to this Court that the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is given in total disregard to the judgment of the Supreme Court and the statutory provisions. This is the illegality, impropriety or error in the award of the Tribunal at the most and for its correction the statutory remedy of appeal is provided to this Court and this petition filed by the petitioner is wholly misconceived, misplaced and totally ill- adviced.

(4). Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides the appeal against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to this Court. Proviso to Sec. 173 provides that no appeal by person who is required to pay any amount in terms of such award shall be entertained by the High Court unless he has deposited with it Rs. 25,000/- or 50% of the amount so awarded whichever is less in the manner directed by the High Court. In the case in hand this right of appeal was available on deposit of some amount of the award by the petitioner and this writ petition appears to have been filed with the obvious purpose and object not to deposit this amount as provided under the proviso to Sec. 173 of the M.V. Act.

(5). Insurance Company is not an ordinary litigant. It should not act and behave in the manner in which the ordinary litigant acts in the Court. It is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. Third party insurance is now compulsory under the statute. What for this compulsory third party insurance has been made a statutory requirement for the motor vehicle is very obvious. The reason is that on the death or the injury caused to a person in the motor vehicle accident, they get the compensation immediately. It was very difficult for the claimants to recover the amount of compensation from the owner of the vehicle but now after this amendment the Insurance Company is to reimburse for the liability of the compensation of the owner to the claimants. The Insurance Company instead of approaching, acting and looking in furtherance of the object and purpose for which the statutory compulsion is there for third party insurance of the vehicle acts, behaves in a manner like an ordinary litigant in the courts. The

Click Here to Read the rest of this document