UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. SREEDHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This M.F.A. is filed by the third respondent insurer challenging the quantum of compensation and liability in the award passed by the M.A.C.T., Vadakara in O. P. [M. V.) No. 2269 of 1995.

(2.) The counsel for the respondent submitted that the above appeal preferred by the insurer is not maintainable in view of the fact that no permission under S.170 of the Motor Vehicles Act is obtained by the insurer from the M.A.C.T. to contest the O.P. In support of the above argument the counsel for the respondent relied upon the decision in Shankarayya v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. AIR 1998 (3) S.C. 2968 where the Supreme Court has observed as follows:

(3.) The counsel for the appellant. Insurer submitted that in the written statement filed by the appellant as third respondent before the M.A.C.T., they had reserved the right to take up all defences available to the insured under the Act and as per the terms and conditions of the policy and requested the Tribunal to permit the third respondent to defend the case by invoking the provisions contained in S.170 of the Act. Therefore the counsel submitted that the appellant has made the request for permission to defend the case in the written statement itself and the tribunal had to grant permission to the appellant in that behalf. It is also submitted that in this case, the other respondents, though filed counter statements, no evidence is adduced by any of the other parties and therefore the appellant had no opportunity to seek permission of the court to contest the matter under S.170 of the M. V. Act. It is seen from the proceedings of the tribunal that after some adjournments of the case after the parties appeared and filed Written statements, the learned Tribunal raised issues on 11th October 1995 and posted the case for enquiry on 4th December 1995. Exts. A - 1 to A - 3 were marked on behalf of the claimant on that day and the claimant did not adduce any oral evidence. It is also recorded in the proceedings of the Tribunal that respondents 1 to 3 have no evidence and after hearing the parties the O.P. was posted for Orders to 15th December 1995. On 15th December 1995 again it was posted to 18th February 1995 for orders on which date the impugned Order is passed. Therefore it is clear that after the written statements were filed by the parties, the matter was posted by the learned Tribunal for enquiry. Therefore if in fact the other respondents did not raise any contention, the third respondent should have sought permission of the court to contest the matter on merits by invoking the provisions of S.170 of the M. V. Act at the stage when the other respondents submitted that they have no evidence in the case.