NATIONALINSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SK ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal, the appellant challenges the judgment and award dated 5th August, 2006, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Jalna in M.A.C.P. No. 107/2005, holding the appellant along with respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the driver and owner of the vehicle respectively, liable to pay jointly and severally Rs. 75,000 to the claimants, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of claim petition, till its realization. The award further directs the appellant and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to pay jointly and severally Rs. 1,25,000 to the claimant No. 2 with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till its realization.

(2.) The award has been challenged mainly on the ground that the evidence was conducted by the Tribunal on 20th July, 2006, on which date although the Counsel for the appellant Company was present in the Court up to 4.30 p.m., the evidence was recorded thereafter, when he had left for his work, in other Court and the evidence was closed. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that on 21st July, 2006 the Counsel for the appellant filed an application Ext. 26 for recalling all witnesses stating therein that he could not cross-examine the claimant for the reasons stated in the application and therefore, an opportunity be provided for cross-examination. This application was rejected on the very same day on the ground that the matter was adjourned for the judgment in early hours of the same day. The learned Counsel for the appellant, therefore, submits that the impugned judgment and award suffers from failure to provide an opportunity of being heard as contemplated by Section 168, which include an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of the claimant and further to lead evidence in support of its case.

(3.) The learned Counsel Mr. P.P. Deshpande, appearing for the respondent-claimants has opposed the claim in the instant appeal on the ground that the Insurance Company cannot be said to be a person aggrieved as there is no permission obtained by the Insurance Company or granted by the Tribunal as required under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. According to the learned Counsel for claimants, it is the defence raised by the Insurance Company that the vehicle in question was not involved in the accident and that it was not insured. It is also the ground raised that, Insurance Company has not been provided an opportunity as contemplated by Section 168 of the said Act. It is urged that even accepting that the said grounds exists, the appeal under Section 173 of the said Act is not maintainable for the reasons viz. (i) that none of the grounds fall under Sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the said Act and (ii) no permission of Tribunal has been obtained under Section 170 of the said Act. According to the learned Counsel, the matter is covered by the following decisions of the Apex Court: