NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. BOMMAKKAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. has filed the above review application under Order 47, rule 1 read with section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the order made in C.M.A. No. 347 of 1988. The said appeal was filed against the order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Namakkal, dated 15.10.1997, in M.C.O.P. No. 118 of 1985, filed by the claimant/respondent No. 1 herein.

(2.) The learned single Judge of this court by order dated 6.3.1997, by applying the decision of the Apex Court in Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 1996 ACJ 65 (SC) and in view of the amended provision under section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act directed the insurance company to pay the compensation fixed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the said appeal, viz., C.M.A. No. 347 of 1988, filed by the claimant was allowed directing the respondent No. 2 therein, i.e., the insurance company, to make payment of compensation fixed by the Tribunal, i.e., Rs. 96,000, to the claimant with inteest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Aggrieved by the said award the insurance company has filed the present review stating that the decision of the Supreme Court referred to by the learned single Judge, Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra), is not applicable to the facts of this case, since the facts in that case as well as in the present case are completely different. It is also contended that inasmuch as the new Motor Vehicles Act has come into force with effect from 1.7.1989, and of the fact that in our case the accident took place on 13.7.1985, well prior to the new Act, only the provisions of the old Act are applicable and, hence, fastening the liability against the insurance company/review petitioner herein by the learned single Judge cannot be sustained.

(3.) I have heard Mr. K.S. Narasimhan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. S. Sethuratnam, learned senior counsel and Mr. C. Pandian, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. K. Kuppuswamy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3.