2003 Supreme(HP) 216
V.K.GUPTA, KAMLESH SHARMA, A.K.GOEL
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. – Appellant
Versus
SOMA DEVI – Respondent
Advocates Appeared:
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.
JUDGMENT
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 onl
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
