PRATIMA HARI GAONKER Vs. DEEPAK SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned counsel for the parties agree that a common Judgment and Order can dispose of both these appeals. Both these appeals challenge the Judgment and Award dtd. 31/3/2018 made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North Goa (Tribunal), disposing of Claim Petition No.83/2015. First Appeal No.83/2018 is instituted by the claimants claiming additional compensation. First Appeal No.12/2022 is instituted by the insurance company objecting to the award of any compensation. Hence, it is only appropriate to consider and dispose of both these appeals by a common Judgment and Order.

(2.) Mr U. R. Timble, the learned counsel for the insurance company, pointed out that in the written statement filed by the insurance company and by filing a separate application, leave was applied under Sec. 170(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act (M.V. Act). Such leave was applied because neither the owner nor the truck driver involved in the accident bothered to appear or defend the proceedings. He submits that the Tribunal made no orders on these applications but proceeded to make the impugned award. Mr Timble, relying on National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Jairani and others - First Appeal No.397/2008, decided by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court on 7/1/2009, submits that the award is rendered nullity in such a case. He placed on record this decision which is reported in ILR (Allahabad Series) at page 87.

(3.) Mr Timble, without prejudice, submits that since the insurance company was factually allowed by the Tribunal to raise all defences, including the defences other than those stipulated under Sec. 149(2) of the M.V. Act and was also allowed to cross-examine the witnesses or lead defence evidence, the appellant-insurance company would have no objection if the application under Sec. 170(b) of the M.V. Act which remained to be formally allowed, is allowed by this Court and the insurance company is permitted to urge all grounds, including the ground that the quantum of compensation is excessive and does not represent just compensation.