SHANKARAYYA Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted. The appeal is taken up for final hearing as the appellants-claimants and the respondent-Insurance Company, which is the only contesting party in this appeal, are represented by their counsel. Counsel for respective parties were finally heard.

(2.) The short question is whether respondent No. 1-Insurance Company could have filed an appeal in the High Court against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and got the quantum of compensation reduced when the insured had not filed such appeal and when respondent No. 1-Insurance Company had not moved the Tribunal under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for getting the right to contest the proceedings on merits. It may be stated that the appellants filed a Claim Petition in 1989 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gulbarga for death on account of motor accident to their 18 years old son. The accident occurred on 4-9-1989. It was caused by a jeep which was owned by one Om Prakash, respondent No. 2 in this appeal. The same was being driven by original respondent No. 2 Chandrashekher Pattan and the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No. 1-Insurance Company. In the claim petition though the owner and driver appeared, they did not think it fit to file written statement. Written statement was filed only by respondent No. 1-Insurance Company. In the written statement it was stated that in case the owner-insured did not choose to appear in these proceedings and contest, then the Insurance Company desired to get proper orders under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Insurance Company for reasons best known to it did not think it fit to apply under Sec. 170 of the Act for getting permission of the Court on proof of relevant conditions mentioned in the section for contesting the proceedings on merits. Consequently, the defence of the Insurance Company was confined to statutory defence only. It is true that the claimants did not object to the Insurance Company joining issues on merits in the Tribunal. Ultimately the Tribunal passed an award against the driver, owner and the Insurance Company to the extent of Rs. 1,05,000/-. That award became final against the owner and the driver. However respondent No. 1-Insurance Company carried the matter in appeal and submitted in appeal that the compensation awarded was on a higher side. Meaning thereby the appeal was moved only on the merits of the compensation claim. That appeal was allowed by the High Court by the impugned judgment and the compensation was reduced to Rs. 60,000/-. It is this reduction of the compensation by the High Court that is the subject matter of the present appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants was right when she contended that as the first respondent-Insurance Company did not move under Sec. 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it was not entitled to challenge the compensation on merits and only statutory defence was available to the Insurance Company. It is true that respondent No. 1 was allowed to contest on merits despite not following the procedure laid under Sec. 170 of the Act and as a result the compensation claim of Rs. 2,60,000/- was not granted in full and only Rs. 1,05,000/- was granted to the claimants. To that extent on the contest of the Insurance Company on merits this much benefit was made available to the Insurance Company and that of course, could not be gone behind by the claimants as the claimants were satisfied with the award of the Tribunal not decreeing their full claim. Therefore, only contest in the appeal was by the Insurance Company which wanted the award of the Tribunal to be further reduced and that is exactly what the High Court has done. In our view, the Insurance Company was clearly incompetent to file an appeal on the merits of the claim before the High Court. In this connection, we may profitably refer to Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which reads as under: