SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1999 Supreme(Ori) 243

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
P.K. Misra, J.
PRAFULLA KUMAR BEHERA - APPELLANT
Versus
SARDAR KARNAL SINGH AND OTHERS - RESPONDENT
Miscellaneous Case No. 921 of 1995
Decided On : 15-11-1999

Advocates Appeared:
R.N. Mohanty, Y. Das and D.K. Dey, for the Appellant; P. Ray, S.K. Ghose, L. Das, S. Roy (R-3), A.K. Mohanty and M.C. Nayak (R-4), for the Respondent

The Insurance Company can be asked to pay the compensation amount at any stage prior to execution, as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.

Headnote:

Insurance - Motor Accident - Liability of Insurance Company - The court directed the United India Insurance Company Ltd. to pay compensation for injuries sustained in a motor accident, despite being impleaded as a party by mistake. The court held that the question of quantum is primarily between the claimant and the owner, and the Insurance Company can be asked to pay the amount at any stage prior to execution, as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant filed a claim for compensation for injuries sustained in a motor accident. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,000, which was later enhanced to Rs. 6,000 on appeal. A subsequent application was filed to implead the correct Insurance Company for payment of the compensation.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that despite the United India Insurance Company Ltd. not being impleaded as a party at the time of the appeal, it should be directed to pay the compensation in the interest of justice. The court held that the Insurance Company can be asked to pay the amount at any stage prior to execution, as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.

Issues: Impleading of the incorrect Insurance Company, liability of the Insurance Company, and the quantum of compensation.

Ratio Decidendi: The question of quantum is primarily between the claimant and the owner, and the Insurance Company can be asked to pay the amount at any stage prior to execution, as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.

Final Decision: The court allowed the application and directed the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. to comply with the award.

ORDER

1. The present appellant had filed claim case claiming compensation for injuries sustained by him in a motor accident. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and directed that the said amount should be paid by the United India Insurance Company Ltd. Being dissatisfied with the quantum, the present appeal was filed. Unfortunately, however, at the time of filing the appeal, "New India Assurance Company" was impleaded as a respondent instead of the United India Insurance Company Ltd. The defect was also not pointed out by the office. The appeal was allowed on 18.8.1994 and it was directed that a sum of Rs. 6,000/- should be paid as compensation. It was further directed that the said amount should be paid by the Insurer. Subsequently, it was discovered that by mistake, New India Assurance Company had been impleaded as a party. Therefore, present application has been filed by the appellant for impleading United India Insurance Company Ltd. as a party obviously with a view to give direction to such Company to pay the compensation amount. Notice of such petition has been issued to the United India Insurance Company Ltd. and it has entered appearance through lawyer. However, no objection has been filed.

2. Even though the order of this Court has been passed at a stage when the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. had not been impleaded as a party in appeal, I think in the interest of justice, the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. should be directed to pay the compensation. The learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submitted that the Insurance Company has not been heard in the matter of enhancement. However, the question of fixation of quantum is essentially a matter between the claimant and the owner particularly a matter between the claimant and the owner particularly in view of the decisions reported in 1997 (2) TAC 1 (Narendra Kumar and another v. Yarenissa and others) and 1998 (2) TAC 379 (SC) (Shankarayya and another v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and another). Even though the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. had been impleaded as a party before the Tribunal, it had not raised any objection regarding its liability and in fact, a sum of Rs. 1,000/-had been directed to be paid by such Company. As per the provisions contained in Sections 95 and 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1939, the Insurance Company can be asked to pay the amount at any stage prior to levying of execution and after issuance of such notice as contemplated in Section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the Insurance Company is permitted to raise defences which are available to it as contemplated in law. Since in the present case no such defence had been raised and even in the appeal also no other contention is raised, no prejudice would be caused if direction is given to the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. to satisfy the judgment as pronounced by this Court. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the United Insurance Co. Ltd. is directed to comply with the award.

The Misc. Case is accordingly disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top