PRAFULLA KUMAR BEHERA Vs. SARDAR KARNAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appellant had filed claim case claiming compensation for injuries sustained by him in a motor accident. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,000/ - and directed that the said amount should be paid by the United India Insurance Company Ltd. Being dissatisfied with the quantum, the present appeal was filed. Unfortunately, however, at the time of filing the appeal, 'New India Assurance Company' was impleaded as a respondent instead of the United India Insurance Company Ltd. The defect was also not pointed out by the office. The appeal was allowed on 18.8.1994 and it was directed that a sum of Rs. 6,000/ - should be paid as compensation. It was further directed that the said amount should be paid by the Insurer. Subsequently, it was discovered that by mistake, New India Assurance Company had been impleaded as a party. Therefore, present application has been filed by the appellant for impleading United India Insurance Company Ltd. as a party obviously with a view to give direction to such Company to pay the compensation amount. Notice of such petition has been issued to the United India Insurance Company Ltd. and it has entered appearance through lawyer. However, no objection has been filed.

(2.) EVEN though the order of this Court has been passed at a stage when the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. had not been impleaded as a party in appeal, I think in the interest of justice, the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. should be directed to pay the compensation. The learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submitted that the Insurance Company has not been heard in the matter of enhancement. However, the question of fixation of quantum is essentially a matter between the claimant and the owner particularly a matter between the claimant and the owner particularly in view of the decisions reported in 1997 (2) TAC 1 (SO (Narendra Kumar and another v. Yarenissa and others) and 1998 (2) TAC 379 (SC) (Shankarayya and another v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and another). Even though the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. had been impleaded as a party before the Tribunal, it had not raised any objection regarding its liability and in fact, a sum of Rs. 1,000/ -had been directed to be paid by such Company. As per the provisions contained in Sections 95 and 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1939, the Insurance Company can be asked to pay the amount at any stage prior to levying of execution and after issuance of such notice as contemplated in Section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the Insurance Company is permitted to raise defences which are available to it as contemplated in law. Since in the present case no such defence had been raised and even in the appeal also no other contention is raised, no prejudice would be caused if direction is given to the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. to satisfy the judgment as pronounced by this Court. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the United Insurance Co. Ltd. is directed to comply with the award. The Misc. Case is accordingly disposed of.