Back
2001 (1) JLJ 1
Bhawani Singh, C.J., Dipak Misra and A.K. Mishra, JJ.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Rafeeka Sultan and others
Civil Revision No. 2096 of 1999; against the order of Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Bhopal passed in
Misc. Civil Case No. 41 of 1994; Decided on 26.9.2000.
The Claims Tribunals are Civil Courts, since they determine Civil rights and liabilities. They are not Civil Courts constituted under Civil Procedure Code. It provides for appeal against the order(s) and award(s) of Claims Tribunal in certain circumstances. Where appeal is not provided recourse to revision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code or Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would not be justified. The right to appeal is neither an absolute right nor an ingredient of natural justice. It is a statutory right and it can be circumvented by the conditions in the grant. If a statute gives a right to appeal under certain conditions that right becomes vested and exercisable by the appellant [See : Vijay Prakash & Jawahar v. Collector of Customs (Preventive), Bombay, AIR 1988 SC 2010]. It mayor may not provide for further remedy against order passed in appeal. Since it has not provided for revision, legislative intent cannot be set at naught by challenging the order or award to the Claims Tribunal under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure or petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Doing so would tantamount to mock at law enacted by the legislature, The Apex Court in Chinnama George and others v. N.K. Raju and another [(2000) 4 SCC 130] held that the Insurance Company can challenge the award only on the ground under section 149 (2) and it cannot bypass the bar while including insured or driver since that may amount to mock at the law enacted by the legislature. It cannot defeat the claim by resorting to such a mode. AIR 1988 SC 2010 and (2000) 4 SCC) 30 followed, 2000 (1) JLJ 255 overruled. 1999 ACT 1015 relied on. [Para 16
(2) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- Ss. 149 (2) and 170 -- insurer cannot avail defence other than those available to it under S. 149 (2) unless permission is given under S. 1 to -- this position continues in appeal also -- "person aggrieved" is not "person interested"
Unless permission under section 170 of the Act is obtained by the Insurance Company during enquiry before the Claims Tribunal, it cannot avail defence other than those mentioned in sub-section (2) of section 149 of the Act. The contention of Shri Sanjay Agrawal that restricted defence available to the Insurance Company under section 149 (2) and section 170 seeking permission of the Court for availing other defence, are confined to trial stage and once the award is passed, the Insurance Company has right to challenge legality, propriety and correctness of the award in the appellate Court without any restrictions under section 173 of the Act, cannot, therefore, be accepted.
Section 173 of the Act has to be read along with sections 149 (2) and 170 of the Act. Their operation is not confined to trial stage, as contended. It continues and in case the insurer has obtained order from the Claims Tribunal at the trial stage, only then he can assail the award on all available grounds before the Appellate Court otherwise limited defence under section 149 (2) are available to it. Reading of section 173 of the Act with other two provisions would demonstrate that "any person aggrieved by an award" is not same thing as "person interested" Former has restricted meaning than the latter. The claimant can be aggrieved by the award, if it is less or his claim petition is rejected. The insurer, insured and driver may be aggrieved where claim is allowed and responsibility fixed for payment of compensation. But they can appeal after satisfying the conditions mentioned in section 173 of the Act and in case of Insurance Company, further restriction is that it cannot challenge the award except on grounds mentioned in section 149 (2) of the Act unless reasoned order from the Claims Tribuna1 for taking up other defence is obtained during the trial stage. AIR 1980 SC 1118, AIR 1995 SC 724 and 1988 ACJ 404 distinguished. AIR 1959 SC 1331, 1989 ACJ 961 and (1998) 3 SCC 140 followed. [Para 17
(3) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- Ss. 173, 140, 169 and III A -- compensation awarded shockingly high -- insured or insurer cannot file revision -- only remedy provided in the Act is available -- revision is maintainable when order is passed by tribunal under S. 169 or rules made under S. III A.
The issue posed before the Division Bench was whether insured could take resort to revision where compensation awarded is shockingly high. It has been found in the preceding part of the judgment that the Tribunal is a Civil Court as distinguished from the Criminal Court, discharging functions assigned to them under the special Act, though subordinate to High Court. The order (s)/ award(s) passed by them can be questioned in the superior Court only on grounds and in circumstances available under the Act and the provision of Civil Procedure Code has application only to the extent provided in section 169 of the Act read with rules framed by the State Government under section III A. 1995 JLJ 4 relied on. 2000 (1) JLJ 255 overruled. [Para 18
¼1½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988 && /kkjk 173 rFkk 149¼2½ && flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && /kkjk 115 && Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 227 && vf/kfu;e ds v/khu vihy dk mipkj micaf/kr ugha && vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 115 vFkok lafo/kku ds vuq- 227 dk vkJ; ugha fy;k tk ldrk && chekdrkZ] mls miyC/k izfroknksa ds vk/kkj ij gh vihy Qkby dj ldrk gSA
nkok vf/kdj.k flfoy U;k;ky; gSa D;ksafd muds }kjk flfo/k vf/kdkjksa rFkk nkf;Roksa dk vo/kkj.k fd;k tkrk gSA og flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk ds v/khu xfBr flfoy U;k;ky; ugha gSaA flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk esa dfri; ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa nkok vf/kdj.k ds vkns‘k rFkk vf/kfu.kZ; ds fo:) vihy micaf/kr gSA tgk¡ vihy micaf/kr ugha gS] flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 115 iqujh{k.k vFkok Hkkjr ds lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 227 ds v/khu fjV ;kfpdk U;k;ksfpr ugha gksxhA vihy djus dk vf/kdkj u vkR;afrd vf/kdkj gS] u uSlfxZd U;k; dk ?kVd gh gSA og dkuwuh vf/kdkj gS rFkk iznku dh ‘krksZa }kjk bldh ifjoapuk dh tk ldrh gSA ;fn fdlh dkuwu esa dfri; ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds v/khu vihy dk vf/kdkj fn;k x;k gS rc og vf/kdkj fufgr rFkk vihykFkhZ }kjk iz;ksT; gks tkrk gS ¿ns[ksa % fot;izdk‘k rFkk tokgj fo- dyDVj lhek&‘kqYd ¼fuokjd½] cacbZ] , vkb vkj 1988 ,l lh 2010ÀA vihy esa ikfjr vkns‘k ds fo:) vfrfjDr mipkj mlesa micaf/kr gks Hkh ldrk gS rFkk ugha HkhA D;ksafd mlesa iqujh{k.k micaf/kr ugha gS blfy, flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 115 ds v/khu vFkok Hkkjr ds lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 227 ds v/khu ;kfpdk }kjk nkok vf/kdj.k dk vkns‘k vFkok vf/kfu.kZ; vkf{kIr dj fo/kk;h vk‘k; dk vuknj ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ,slk djuk fo/kku eaMy }kjk vf/kfu;fer fof/k ds migkl ds leku gksxkA fpUuek tktZ rFkk vU; fo- ,u-ds- jktw rFkk ,d vU; ¿¼2002½ 4 ,l lh lh 130À esa mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k Fkk fd chek daiuh }kjk dsoy /kkjk 149 ¼2½ ds v/khu miyC/k vk/kkj ij vf/kfu.kZ; vkf{kIr fd;k tk ldrk gS rFkk chekd`r O;fDr vFkok pkyd dks lfEefyr djrs le; otZu ls drjk;k ugha tk ldrk D;ksafd ,slk] fo/kku eaMy }kjk vf/kfu;fer fof/k ds migkl ds leku gks ldrk gSA mlds }kjk ,slh jhfr viuk dj nkok foQy ugha fd;k tk ldrkA , vkb vkj 1988 ,l lh 2010 rFkk ¼2000½4 ,l lh lh 130 vuqlfjrA 2000 ¼1½ ts ,y ts 255 myVk x;kA 1999 , lh ts 1015 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 16
¼2½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988 && /kkjk 149¼2½ rFkk 170 && chekdrkZ] /kkjk 149¼2½ ds v/khu mls miyC/k izfroknksa ds vfrfjDr izfroknksa dk ykHk ugha mBk ldrk tc rd fd /kkjk 170 ds v/khu vuqKk ugha nh xbZ gks && ;gh fLFkfr vihy esa Hkh cuh jgrh gS && ^O;fFkr O;fDr*] ^^fgrc) O;fDr** ugha gSA
nkok vf/kdj.k ds le{k tk¡p ds nkSjku chek daiuh }kjk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 170 ds v/khu vuqKk vfHkizkIr ugha dh xbZ gks rc mlds }kjk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 149 dh mi/kkjk ¼2½ ds v/khu mfYyf[kr izfroknksa ds vfrfjDr vU; izfroknksa dk ykHkk ugha mBk;k tk ldrkA vr%] Jh lat; vxzoky dk ;g ladFku Lohdj ugha fd;k tk ldrk fd /kkjk 149 ¼2½ ds v/khu chek daiuh dks miyC/k fucZaf/kr izfrokn rFkk vU; izfroknksa dk ykHk mBkus ds fy, /kkjk 170 ds v/khu U;k;ky; dh vuqKk dh bZIlk] fopkj.k ds izØe rd lhfer gSa rFkk ,d ckj vf/kfu.kZ; ikfjr gksus ij chek daiuh dks vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 173 ds v/khu fucZa/kuksa ds fcuk] vihy U;k;ky; esa vf/kfu.kZ; dh oS/krk] vkSfpR; rFkk ‘kq)rk vkf{kIr djus dk vf/kdkj gSA
vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 173 dk ikB vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 149 ¼2½ rFkk 170 ds lkFk fd;k tkuk gksxkA mudk izorZu] ;FkkladfFkr] fopkj.k ds izØe rd lhfer ugha gSA og fujarj jgrk gS rFkk chekdrkZ }kjk fopkj.k ds izØe ij nkok vf/kdj.k ls vkns‘k vfHkizkIr dj fy, tkus dh n‘kk esa gh og vihy U;;ky; ds le{k lc miyC/k vk/kkjksa ij vf/kfu.kZ; ij vk{ksi dj ldrk gS] vU;Fkk /kkjk 149¼2½ ds v/khu lhfer izfrokn mls miyC/k gksaxsA nks vU; mica/kksa ds lkFk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 173 ds ikB ls funf‘kZr gksxk fd ^^O;fDr tks vf/kfu.kZ; ls O;fFkr gS** vkSj ^^fgrc) O;fDr]** ,d&gh ugha gSA iwoksZDr dk vFkZ vojksDr ls vf/kd fucZaf/kr gSA nkosnkj vf/kfu.kZ; ls O;fFkr gks ldrk gS ;fn og de gks vFkok mldh nkok vthZ [kkfjt gks tkrh gSA chekdrkZ] chfer rFkk pkyd O;fFkr gks ldrs gSa tc nkok eatwj fd;k x;k gks rFkk izfrdj ds lank; ds fy, mÙkjnkf;Ro fu;r fd;k x;k gks ijarq og vf/kfu;r dh /kkjk 173 esa mfYyf[kr ‘krsZa iw.kZ djus ds i‘pkr~ vihy dj ldrs gSa rFkk chek daiuh ds ekeys esa vfrfjDr fucZa/ku ;g gS fd mlds }kjk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 149¼2½ esa mfYyf[kr vk/kkjksa ds flok, vf/kfu.kZ; vkf{kIr ugha fd;k tk ldrk tc rd fd fopkj.k ds izØe ds nkSjku nkok vf/kdj.k ls vU; izfrokn djus ds fy, ldkj.k vkns‘k vfHkizkIr ugha fd;k x;k gksA , vkb vkj 1980 ,l lh 1118] , vkb vkj 1995 ,l lh 724 rFkk 1988 , lh ts 404 izHksfnrA , vkb vkj 1959 ,l lh 1331] 1989 , lh ts 961] rFkk ¼1998½ 3 ,l lh lh 140 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 17
¼3½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988 && /kkjk 173] 140] 169 rFkk 111d && vf/kfu.khZr izfrdj vR;f/kd && chekd`r vFkok chekd`r iqujh{k.k Qkby ugha dj ldrk && dsoy vf/kfu;e esa micaf/kr mipkj miyC/k gS && vf/kdj.k }kjk vkns‘k /kkjk 169 /kkjk 111d ds v/khu cuk, x, fu;eksa ds v/khu ikfjr fd;k x;k gks rc iqujh{k.k pyus ;ksX; gSA
[kaM U;k;ihB ds le{k mBk;k x;k fook|d ;g Fkk fd tc vf/kfu.khZr izfrdj gks rc D;k chfer O;fDr iqujh{k.k dk vkJ; ys ldrk gS \ fu.kZ; ds iwoZorhZ Hkkx esa fu"df"kZr fd;k x;k gS fd vf/kdj.k] nkafMd U;k;ky; ls izHks| flfoy U;k;ky; gSa] ftuds }kjk fo‘ks"k vf/kfu;e ds v/khu mUgsa lkSais x, d`R;ksa dk fuoZu fdk tkrk gS] ;|fi og mPp U;k;ky; ds v/khuLFk gSaA muds }kjk ikfjr vknsk@vf/kfu.kZ; dsoy vf/kfu;e ds v/khu miyC/k vk/kkjksa ij rFkk ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ofj"B U;k;ky; }kjk iz‘uxr fd, tk ldrs gSa( rFkk flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk dk mica/k dsoy vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 111d ds v/khu jkT; ljdkj }kjk fojfpr fu;e lgifBr /kkjk 169 esa micaf/kr lhek rd ykxw gksxkA 1995 ts ,y ts 4 voyafcrA 2000 ¼1½ ts ,y ts 255 myVk x;kA ¿ iSjk 18
Singh, C.J. -- 1 Whether Insurance Company can challenge quantum of compensation under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is the question for determination in this case, It arises in circumstances being narrated hereinafter.
1. Mahmood-Ul-Hassan (40-45) was employed with M.P. State Road Transport Corporation, earning Rs. 1,400/- per month, apart from allowances and other facilities. While he was going towards crossing from Bus Stand on 18.2.1996, truck No CPD 8250 driven by Dev Kumar rashly and negligently hit him resulting in his death. The matter was reported at Police Station Hanumanganj and case under section 304A of the Indian Penal Code filed in the Court after investigation. Autopsy of the dead body of Mahmood-Ul-Hassan was conducted on 19.2.1986 at Hamidia Hospital. Dinesh Kumar was owner of the truck while the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. was insurer. The c1aimants preferred a claim for Rs. Four Lacs, since they were dependant on the deceased. Other side admitted taking place of accident rest of the allegations were denied and the Insurance Company alleged that it was not responsible for making payment.
2. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (for brevity 'Tribunal') found on evidence recorded in the case that the accident was committed on 18.2.1986 at 9.30 p.m. by truck No CPD 8250 driven rashly and negligently by driver and the deceased was not responsible for it. It found that in this accident, deceased suffered serious injuries resulting in his death and that the claimants were entitled to claim compensation. Accordingly, compensation of Rs. 1,60,000/- has been awarded with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of claim till the date of realization by award dated 27.3.1998 passed in M.C.C. No. 41/94.
3. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. assailed this award through Civil Revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, alleging that the Tribunal acted illegally and in disregard of provisions of law in allowing the compensation with interest at the rate of 12% per annum holding that the deceased was 40 years old and applied multiplier of 10, instead of holding that the deceased was 53 years old as reflected in the salary certificate and the case admitted multiplier of 6 (six) for determination of compensation, nor could interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing the application for a period of 12 years be allowed since delay• in disposal of case was attributable to the claimants for which the Insurance Company could not be penalised.
4. Initially, Misc. Appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, was filed. However, it was converted into revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, with permission of the Court at a later stage, presumably on realisation that appeal at the instance of the Insurer as to quantum of compensation, was not competent. This matter appeared before Brother Dipak Misra, J. In His Lordship's view, the Division Bench decision of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ramdas Patil and others (2000 (1) JLJ 255 = AIR 2000 MP 63) required reconsideration by a larger Bench, since where appeal lies under the Statute, quantum of compensation cannot be questioned at the instance of Insurance Company having limited defence, the award cannot be assailed in Civil Revision or for that matter in a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, while the opinion of the Bench in Ramdas Patil's case (supra) was to the contrary. For coming to the conclusion, the learned Single Judge has taken into consideration number of important judgments, relevant provisions of law in a comprehensive manner. This is how the matter is before the Full Bench for determination of the question put up for consideration by the learned counsel for the parties and quoted in the beginning of the judgment.
5. Looking to the importance of the question, we requested Sarvashri Ravish Agrawal, S
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
