ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. NORBERT THOMAS NORONHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE five Appeals have been preferred against the orders dated 13th February, 1998 whereby the Application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been allowed and the Appellents herein the Insurer has been directed to deposit an amount of Rs.25.000/- in each of the applications moved under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Appellants aggrieved by the said Order have preferred this Appeals in each of the cases. On behalf of the Appellants, it is contended that the Tribunal did not conduct the enquiry as contemplated. It is further contended that on failure to comply with the enquiry has resulted in prejudice to the Appellants in as much as they were not in a position to set out that there was a breach of the terms of Policy. It is pointed out that the Judgment of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside as it has not followed the laws laid down by this Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. -vs- Savitribai Tukaram Londhe 1997 ACJ 477 (Bombay) and another Judgment of another Single Judge of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v/s Gajanan Rambhau Mohite; 1997 ACJ 605. Reliance is also placed on a Judgment of the Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court in the case of M/s. United India Insurance Company, Bangalore, v/s Immam Amini Nadaf and Ors. AIR 1990 Karnataka 156. It is contended that the driver of the vehicle did not have a licence to drive a heavy vehicle and that the Appellants cannot be liberty that they were not in a position to establish their case. This denial they contend has seriously prejudiced them and as such orders are liable to be set side and remanded for fresh consideration after giving liberty to the Appellants.

(2.) THE law is now well settled that an enquiry under Section 140 partake of a summary enquiry and that the entire purpose of introduction of Section 140 in the Motor Vehicles Act is as a benovelent provision so as to enable the Claimant to get some immediate assistance on account of the accident arising in the case. It is no doubt true that the Tribunal while passing an Award under Section 140 has to consider the minimum requirements viz. that there is an accident; that the claimant suffered injuries as contemplated under the Motor Vehicles Act for the purpose of compensation under no fault liability and that if the liability to be cast on the insurer that there was a valid policy at the time of the accident.

(3.) DEALING with the aforesaid contentions, the same has to be rejected at a thrash hold itself. The Appeal is by the Insurance Company. An Appeal by the Insurance Company in its very nature is restricted to the defences which were available to them before the Claims Tribunal namely breach of the terms of the policy. In the limited number of cases where there is a collusion between the owner and the claimants, the Court has permitted the Insurance Company to challenge the quantum of compensation. In the instant case the owner has not challenged the Award. Further in the Appeal Memo nor before the Tribunal has the Insurance Company pleaded that there is collusion between the owner and the Claimants. In the light of that this argument on behalf of the Appellant must be rejected.