The statutory liability of the insurer is limited to the amount specified in the policy, and the insured must be afforded an opportunity to be heard before any enhancement of compensation.

S. P. SRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) THE appellants-claimants had filed an application under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short), for the award of compensation initiating the proceedings arising out of an accident involving a motor vehicle, a maruti car bearing registration No. DID 6538 wherein Ratna Naik aged about 10 years had met her untimely death.

( 2 ) THE Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on a consideration of the evidence and the materials brought on record by the various parties had determined that the present appellants, i. e. , the father and mother of the deceased were entitled to an amount of Rs. 45,000 towards compensation.

( 3 ) ACCORDINGLY, the aforesaid Tribunal granted an award under section 168 of the act, specifying that the said amount be paid by the insurer and the owner as well as the driver together with the interest awarded at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the filing of the application, i. e. , 22. 9. 92, clarifying, however, that an amount of Rs. 25,000 which had already been paid to the claimants will be deductible from the said amount.

( 4 ) THE Tribunal further ordered that the liability cast for the payment of the amount due under the award will be joint and several liability of the owner, driver and the insurer.

( 5 ) FEELING aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the father and mother of the deceased minor daughter have filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of the amount of the compensation to the extent of Rs. 5,55,000. The original claim has been thus reduced from Rs. 10,55,000 to Rs. 5,55,000.

( 6 ) DURING the pendency of the appeal, the appellants had moved an application being I. A. No. 1 of 1996 praying that the service of the notice on the respondent No. 1, i. e. , the driver and the respondent No. 2, i. e. , the owner be dispensed with.

( 7 ) THE aforesaid application was allowed by this court vide the order dated 11,7. 1996 and the service of the notices on the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was dispensed with.

( 8 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, however, another application being I. A. No. 7902 of 1999, was filed. The appellants had prayed for the recall of the aforesaid order and for the grant of permission to serve with the notices of the appeal on the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

( 9 ) WHEN the aforesaid application was taken up for hearing on 1. 3. 2000, the learned counsel for the appellants had made a statement that the appellants did not want to press the said application. The aforesaid application was, therefore, rejected as not pressed.

( 10 ) THE net result, therefore, is that in this appeal filed under section 173 of the motor Vehicles Act, 1988, wherein the claimants seek enhancement of the amount of compensation, only the insurer, the respondent No. 3 stands served with the notices of the appeal. The owner of the offending motor vehicle and the driver of the offending motor vehicle against whom under the impugned award joint and several liability to pay the amount awarded as compensation had been fastened along with the insurer have not been served with the notices of the appeal. Obviously, the appellants seek the enhancement of the amount awarded by the Tribunal without affording an opportunity of being heard to the owner and driver of the offending motor vehicle.

( 11 ) THE learned counsel for the insurer, in the circumstances as indicated above, has raised a preliminary objection in regard to the maintainability of this appeal asserting that the award fastening joint and several liability for the payment of the amount of compensation on the driver, owner and the insurer in respect of the amount specified thereunder cannot under the law be enhanced behind the back of the owner and driver of the offending motor vehicle.

( 12 ) IT has further been asserted by the learned counsel for the insurer that the liability of the insurer was confined to the extent of the liability fastened on the owner and driver of the offending motor vehic

Click Here to Read the rest of this document