NEW INDIAASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. MEHARUNISHA @ MISROZAND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE issue is when the claim petition is disposed of by the Tribunal keeping the application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') pending, the same will be construed as implied permission by the Tribunal to the insurance company and, if at all can the appeal be disposed of on merit.

(2.) IT is pertinent to mention here that in 2008 (1) T.A.C. 266 (All.) (New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Dr. Prem Singh Bhadauria and another) this Bench has decided the issue by holding a view that no one can be allowed to draw any favourable inference by saying that there is an implied permission in such circumstances. No application either interim or interlocutory or miscellaneous in nature can be treated to be pending when the main cause by way of suit or proceeding is disposed of either way. Non-recording of any such order in any of such applications is a bona fide mistake. No scope of appeal can be said to be available for alleged pendency. In other words, pendency can be couched in both ways. It can be said to be implied permission or implied rejection. According to us, when an affirmative order is passed ignoring or refusing insurance companies' plea particularly in absence of statutory defence under Section 149(2) of the Act, implied permission could not have been couched. Ratio of such judgment has been followed by this Bench in the subsequent judgments inclusive of the judgment reported in 2009 (1) AWC 340 (New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Padma Devi and others).

(3.) IN AIR 2002 SC 3350 (National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nicolletta Rohtagi and others) we find as follows: