LAWS(ALL)-2009-12-9

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. MAHARUNISHA

Decided On December 16, 2009
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Appellant
V/S
MAHARUNISHA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) IT is pertinent to mention here that in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Dr. Prem Singh Bhadauria, 2009 ACJ 970 (Allahabad), 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 in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Padma Devi, 2009 ACJ 2196 (Allahabad).

(3.) THE ratio of Nicolletta Rohtagi, 2002 ACJ 1950 (SC), was again followed by a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the judgment in Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2003 ACJ 505 (SC). THEre also it was held that right of appeal is a statutory right and when law provides remedy by way of appeal on limited grounds, the same will be done for the said purpose and not for any other purpose. THE judgment is categorical that limited purpose is only with regard to those provided under section 149 (2) of the Act.