DHRUSHRI Vs. SURAJ NARAIN CHAUDHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE claimants being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal have come up in appeal.

(2.) THE deceased was going on a bullock cart from Etawah to his village on the night of 2/3rd December, 1976 when it was hit by a tractor No. UTC 560 coming from the opposite direction which dashed against the cart in which the deceased was riding causing the cart to overturn. As a result one buffalow and the cartman Sri Krishan died. The Claims Tribunal has found that the Tractor was being driven rashly and negligently at the time of accident. As against the claim of Rs. 60,000/- a sum of Rs. 10,000/- only has been awarded.

(3.) SRI G.R. Jain, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, has taken a preliminary objection that the Insurance Company has no right of being heard in opposition to the appeal. It is urged that an insurer's rights are limited to the extent provided by Section 96(2) He, therefore, urged that in so far as quantum of compensation is concerned the Insurance Company has no right at all to oppose the claim and that the insurer has no right even to justify or support the award of the Tribunal. In this connection learned Counsel has referred to a Division Bench decision of this Court in United India Fire & General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gulab Chand Gupta . It will be interesting to note here that in that case the appeal bad been filed by the Insurance Co. alone with the owner of the vehicle. On an objection taken by the respondent to the effect that a joint appeal by them was not maintainable the owner opted to have his name deleted from the array of appellants. Thereafter the appeal remained only on behalf of the Insurance Co. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in British India General Insurance Co. v. Cap. Itar Singh the Bench took the view that the Insurance Co. had no right to file an appeal except on the ground mentioned in Section 96(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act and, therefore, it could not be heard for assailing the findings regarding quantum of compensation awarded. However, that case is clearly distinguishable. The appeal there had been filed by the insurer itself while the instant appeal has been filed by the claimant. Infect the insurer here is only interested in supporting the Tribunal's judgment on the basis of material already on the record and is in no way seeking to challenge its findings on any ground outside Section 96(2) of the Act.