NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY Vs. VENKATAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the insurance company. The question that arises for our consideration is, whether the insurance company can take up contentions which are not covered under s. 96(2) of the Motor Vechicles Act when the Supreme Court of India has settled the point holding that the defence available to an insurance company is confirmed to the subject mentioned in s. 96(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act (vide British India General Insurance Co. Ltd, v. Captain Itbar Singh AIR1959 SC 1331 , [1960 ]1 SCR168 .

(2.) In this case, however, Sri Chinnappa, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that the owner of the vehicle remained absent before the Tribunal and the insurance company defended the case. Simply because the owner remained absent the insurance company does not get ipso facto the right to defend and does not become a party to the proceeding. Section 110C of the Motor Vehicles Act reads :

(3.) Thus, it becomes clear that normally, the insurance company is not impleaded as a party to the proceeding. It is only in the contingencies mentioned in sub-s. (2A) of s. 110C of the Act that the court, for reasons to be recorded, shall pass an order to implead the insurance company. It is only thereupon the company gets right of defending the case on all grounds available to the insured. Section 96(2) states :