MATHURBHAI MADHABHAI Vs. SAVITABEN ALIAS KANCHANBEN JADAVBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Driver, owner, and Insurance Company, against whom an award came to be passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Bhavnagar in M.A.C.P. No. 243 of 1997 in favour of the claimants-respondents, have preferred this appeal challenging its award.

(2.) Heard learned advocate, Mr Rajni Mehta for the appellants. We have never said at any time in the beginning of the appeal or in the course of hearing of the appeal that joint appeal by driver, owner and Insurance Company is not maintainable. However, on such wrong assumption, Mr. Mehta has proceeded making his submissions that such appeals are maintainable. In our view, joint appeal is maintainable but the case of each appellant is required to be considered as if he has filed a separate appeal. So far as the appeal by appellants, i.e., driver and owner are concerned, we do not find any merits in any of their contention challenging in particular both the aspects of negligence and quantum. We say so because none of them had filed any written statement nor have they led any evidence oral or documentary. They have even not cross-examined the witness of the claimant. No contention to challenge the award on any law point is raised. Therefore, we do not find any merits in any of the contention to challenge the award.

(3.) So far as the appeal by Insurance Company is concerned, the Insurance Company in this case before the Tribunal is joined as a party, in view of the provisions of Sec. 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. (the 'Act' for short). Despite their being a party in the proceeding, and having knowledge that driver and owner have not filed written statement, they have not sought necessary permission to be joined as a party under Sec. 170 of the Act so as to entitle to challenge the claim on merits. As the Insurance Company is not joined as party under Sec. 170 of the Act, they have no right to challenge the award on any of the grounds, except those available under Sec. 149 of the Act. Thus, in our opinion, the appeal of either of the appellants, cannot be entertained as no illegality or irregularity is shown to us.