STATE Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED ERNAKULAM, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, SHARANYA, HOSPITAL ROAD, KOCHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The captioned appeals carry conflicting contentions and prayers though both of them carry challenge against the judgment and award dated 26.11.2005 in O.P.(MV) No. 2195/2013 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam. The above mentioned claim petition was filed by the appellants in the latter appeal and the third respondent therein, the insurer of the alleged offending vehicle involved in the accident that led to its filing, is the appellant in the former appeal. While the appellant in the former appeal seeks for appellate interference with the award on the ground of exorbitancy of the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal, the appellants in the latter appeal seek for its enhancement contending that they were denied 'just compensation'. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to hereinafter in this judgment, in accordance with their respective status in the claim petition, unless otherwise specifically mentioned.

(2.) As noticed hereinbefore, the third respondent feels aggrieved by the award, as according to the insurer, the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal is highly exorbitant. It is with the prayer to scale down the quantum of compensation that the former appeal has been filed. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/appellants in the latter appeal, however, takes up the contention that an insurer cannot maintain an appeal challenging the quantum of compensation if the claim petition was resisted by an insurer, without obtaining permission under Sec. 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the M.V.Act'). Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the third respondent/appellant in the former appeal contends that in the light of the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shila Datta [(2011) 4 KLT 378 (SC)] , the objection raised is absolutely bereft of any basis and as such, absolutely untenable.

(3.) In the light of the rival contentions, we are of the considered view that before considering the question whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant or inadequate the very maintainability of the former appeal filed by the insurer, in the light of the objection raised by the respondents therein viz., the petitioners, has to be considered.