Insurance companies have limited rights to appeal compensation quantum under the Motor Vehicles Act, emphasizing statutory purpose.

1. This is an application under Art.226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging an award passed by the M.A.C.T., Kamrup, Guwahati passed in M A C. Case Nos. 128 and 129 of 1996 in the following circumstances:
On 18.2.1996 Bhabesh Sarma, Ranu Devi, Usha Devi and Sumitra Devi all went to Nalbari via National Highway No. 31 from Guwahati by an autorickshaw bearing No. 9285 in order to invite their relatives for some rituals. Autorickshaw was driven by Bhabesh Sarma, holding a valid driving licence at a normal speed. The autorickshaw reached Babikura at about 12 noon when the truck bearing No. DL 1G - A 4649 proceeding in the same direction at a high speed and driven in a rash and negligent manner hit the autorickshaw resulting in instantaneous death of all the inmates of the autorickshaw. The husband and the minor son of the deceased Usha Devi filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.9,65,000 as compensation in Case Nos. 128 and 129 of 1996 the father of the deceased Sumitra Devi has filed claim petition claiming Rs.3,00,000 as compensation. Written statements were filed by the insurance company in both the claim petitions. The owner of the truck did not contest the cases. The learned Tribunal after examination of the witnesses and considering the materials on record awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,04,000 in Case Nos. 128 and 129 of 1996 a sum of Rs.1,25,000 was awarded inclusive of no fault award with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum with effect from 18.4.96, i.e., the date of filing the claim petition till payment. The learned Claims Tribunal in passing the award, took note of the evidence on record which showed that autorickshaw in question was hit due to rash and negligent driving by the truck driver and the occupants of the autorickshaw died. Exh. 2 is the accident information report submitted by the O.C. Kamalpur P.S. and the Exh. 1 shows that Usha Devi and Sumitra Devi died in the accident in which the truck bearing No. DL 1G - A 4649 was involved in the accident. The claimants submitted the charge - sheet and copies of the post - mortem reports. The learned Tribunal held that the vehicle (truck) was driven in a rash and negligent manner and accordingly the awards were made.

2. The insurance company preferred this application under Art.226/227 of the Constitution mainly on the ground that owner, driver and insurer of other vehicle, namely, the autorickshaw was exonerated from the entire liability. It also assailed the conclusion of the learned Tribunal. In view of the age of the deceased and status of their parents an award of Rs.1,25,000 was not the just compensation but excessive. In other words, the insurance company questioned the quantum of the compensation awarded to the claimants. No reasons are assigned as such as to why an appeal was not preferred. Under the Motor Vehicles Act , appeal is provided under S.173 and that appeal is restricted in view of the provisions of the S.149 (2) and 170 of the Act. A Full Bench decision of this court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Lakhimpur , 1993 ACJ 828 (Gau.), held that no appeal lies at the instance of the insurance company questioning the quantum of compensation and appeal is maintainable only on the limited grounds specified in S.149 (2) of the Act. Insurance company when impleaded as a party by the court as enjoined in S.170 of the Act, can only be permitted to contest the proceedings on merits only if the conditions cited in the section are found to be satisfied and for that purpose the insurance company has to obtain in writing an order from the Tribunal and that should be a reasoned order. Unless that procedure is followed, the insurance company cannot have a wider defence on merits t