Back
2003 Supreme(HP) 216
High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
V.K.GUPTA,KAMLESH SHARMA,ARUN KUMAR GOEL
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. - Appellant
Versus
SOMA DEVI - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 43 of 2003 with CMPMO Nos. 42, 43 of 2000, CWP Nos. 969/2000, 542, 543 of 2001, CMPMO Nos. 66, 67 of 2001, CWP Nos. 679, 848, 921 of 2001 and CMPMO No. 3 of 2002
Decided On : 08/18/2003
In CWP No. 43 of 2003 :Ms. Sunita Sharma, Advocate, for the Petitioner; M/s. Bhuvnesh Sharma and Ramakant Sharma, Advocates, for the Respondents No. 1 and 3; Mr. N.K. Thakur, Senior C.G.S.C., for the Respondent No. 7. In CMPMO No. 42 of 2000:Mr. Harish Behal, Advocate, for the Petitioner; Mr. R.K. Gautam, Senior Advocate with Mr. f.R. Poswal, Advocate, for the Respondents No. 1 to 4; Mr. M.L Sharma, Advocate, for the Respondents No. 5 and 6; Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Advocate, for the Respondent No. 7. In CMPMO No. 43 of 2000:Mr. Harish Behal, Advocate, for the Petitioner; Mr. Harish Behal, Advocate, Mr. R.K. Gautam, Senior Advocate with Mr. J.R. Poswal, Advocate, for the Respondents No. 1 to 4; Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate, for the Respondents No. 5 and 6; Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Advocate, for the Respondent No. 7. In CWP No. 969 of 2000:Mr. Harish Behal, Advocate, for the Petitioner; Mr. Bhupender Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Praneet Gupta, Advocate, for the Respondent No. 2; Mr. V. Paul, Advocate, for the Respondent No. 3. In CWP No. 542 of 2001:Mr. K.D. Sood, Advocate, for the Petitioner; Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate, 1 for the Respondents No. 1 and 2. In CWP No. 543 of 2001:Mr. K.D. Sood, Advocate, for the Petitioner; Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate, for the Respondents No. 1 and 2. In CMPMO No. 66 of 2001:Mr. Harish Behal, Advocate, for the Petitioner; Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Advocate, for the Respondents No. 1 to 4; Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate, for the Respondent No. 5. In CMPMO No. 67 of 2001:Mr. Harish Behal, Advocate, for the Petitioner; Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate, for the Respondent No. 2. In CWP No. 679 of 2001:Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Advocate, for the Petitioner; Mr. G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate, for the Respondent No. 2. In CWP No. 848 of 2001:Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate, for the Petitioner; Mr. R.K. Gautam, Senior Advocate with Mr. J.R. Poswal, Advocate, for the Respondent No. 1. In CWP No. 921 of 2001:Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate, for the Petitioner; Nemo, for the Respondents. In CMPMO No. 3 of 2002:Mr. Harish Behal, Advocate, for the Petitioner; Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Advocate, for the Respondent No. 6; Mr. Vinod Sharma, Advocate, for the Respondent No. 1.
The power of High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is plenary in nature and the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act do not prohibit or oust such jurisdiction. The award or decision of a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is not immune from judicial review.
Headnote:
Insurance Company - Maintainability of Writ Petition - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 173 - The court held that a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by an Insurance Company questioning the quantum of compensation determined by the Tribunal is maintainable. The power of High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is plenary in nature and the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act do not prohibit or oust such jurisdiction. The award or decision of a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is not immune from judicial review.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a petition filed by an Insurance Company under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution against an Award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, challenging the quantum of compensation awarded.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petition filed by the Insurance Company questioning the quantum of compensation determined by the Tribunal is maintainable under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution. The power of High Court under Articles 226 and 227 is plenary in nature and the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act do not prohibit or oust such jurisdiction.
Issues: The main issue was whether an insurer can challenge an award passed by a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal only on the question of compensation being excessive in a petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, in view of the limited right of appeal available to the insurer under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the right of appeal is a statutory right and the grounds of challenge cannot be enlarged by filing a petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution on the premise that the insurer has limited grounds available for challenging the award given by the Tribunal. The petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution by the insurer was held to be wholly misconceived.
Final Decision: The Division Bench judgment of the High Court in Sumitra Devi was overruled, and it was held that a petition filed by an insurer challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is maintainable under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution. The court clarified that the power of judicial review by the High Court can be invoked and exercised in cases where the award is a perversity or is based on fraud, and the Insurance Company has no remedy under the Motor Vehicles Act to challenge the award.
V.K. Gupta, CJ.—A Division Bench of this Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sumitra Devi and others, reported in 2003 (1) SLC 1, while dealing with the respondents objection to the maintainability of a writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India by an Insurance Company against an Award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in which the Insurer-petitioner had assailed the Award only on the issue of quantum of compensation, held that such a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by an Insurance Company questioning the quantum of compensation determined by the Tribunal is maintainable. To appreciate the exact ratio in the aforesaid Division Bench judgment, we reproduce para 2 of the judgment which spells out the fact of the Award being challenged only on the question of quantum of compensation awarded and yet a petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, despite the existence of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, being filed to challenge this Award. Para 2 reads thus : "Before coming to the facts of the case we may observe that petitioner-Insurance Company has challenged the Award only on its quantum and reason pleaded for maintaining this writ petition is that petitioner cannot challenge the Award impugned on quantum in view of Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by filing an appeal under Section 173 thereof."
2. After having noticed the aforesaid issue of law involved in this case, the Division Bench proceeded to reproduce the basic, elementary, but rival contentions of the learned Counsel for the writ petitioner (Insurer) and the respondents (claimants). First, the contention of the writ petitioner-Insurer, as contained in para 6 of the judgment reads thus: "On the question of maintainability of this writ, Mr. Anand Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner forcefully urged that if the impugned award is allowed to stand and objection of Mr. Thakur is upheld that this writ at the instance of Insurance Company is not maintainable so far as quantum is concerned, (unless case was covered under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act and permission had been obtained), the result will be disastrous. He further submitted that this Court shall have to put its seal of approval whether the award is perverse, absurd, ridiculously low or abnormally excessive. This can never be the intention of any legislation including provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, even when defences of the petitioner are limited. He further submitted that Tribunal being subordinate to this Court, even in an appropriate case where otherwise it comes to the notice of this Court that an absurd, perverse, abnormal, or excessive award has been passed, the Court would certainly exercise its jurisdiction of superintendence and control with a view to keep Tribunal below within the bounds of its limit otherwise it will result in failure of justice, besides putting premium on such award."
3. The counsel for the respondents, with a view to canvass his point of view that the petition was not maintainable argued thus: "Mr. Thakur with a view to support his submission that this petition is not maintainable in law, placed reliance on the provisions of Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and submitted that keeping in view the defences open to the petitioner, it cannot be said to be "a person aggrieved by award". He further submitted that what is not permitted by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 should not be permitted by the circumventing provisions of said Act and by invoking Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. According to him legislature was well aware when defences of the Insurance Company were limited under Section 149 (supra) of all the situations as well as grounds on which the impugned award has been challenged by the petitioner and not permitting it to challenge on such grounds. He referred to Full Bench decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in New
