ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. NARESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only ground on which the award the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (hereinafter to be referred as ''the Tribunal '') is sought to be challenged, is quantum of compensation. It is not disputed that on the application filed by the Insurance company under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 (for short, ''the Act '') no order was passed by the Tribunal which means that the same was not pressed. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Nicolletta Rohtagi and others (2002 -3) 132 P.L.R. 621, dealing with the issue as to whether an appeal by the Insurance Company under such circumstances is maintainable or not, held as under: - ''24. We have earlier noticed that motor vehicle accident claim is a tortious claim directed against tortfeasors who are the insured and the driver of the vehicle and the insurer comes to the scene as a result of statutory liability created under the Motor Vehicles Act. The legislature has ensured by enacting Section 149 of the Act that the victims of motor vehicle are fully compensated and protected. It is for that reason the insurer cannot escape from its liability to pay compensation on any exclusionary clause in the insurance policy except those specified in Section 149(2) of the Act or where the condition precedent specified in Section 170 is satisfied. 25. For the aforesaid reasons, an insurer if aggrieved against an award, may file an appeal only on those grounds and no other. However, by virtue of Section 170 of the 1988 Act, where in course of an enquiry the Claims Tribunal is satisfied that; (a) there is a collusion between the person making a claim and the person against whom the claim has been made or (b) the person against whom the claim has been made has failed to contest the claim, the tribunal may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, implead the insurer and in that case it is permissible for the insurer to contest the claim also on the grounds which are available to the insured or to the person against whom the claim has been made. Thus, unless an order is passed by the Tribunal permitting the insurer to avail the grounds available to an insured or any other person against whom a claim has been made on being satisfied of the two conditions specified in Section 170 of the Act, it is not permissible to the insurer to contest the claim on the grounds which are available to the insured or to a person against whom a claim has been made. Thus where conditions precedent embodied in Section 170 is satisfied and award is adverse to the interest of the insurer, the insurer has a right to file an appeal challenging the quantum of compensation or negligence or contributory negligence of the offending vehicle even if the insured has not filed by appeal against the quantum of compensation. Sections 149, 170 and 173 are part of one Scheme and if we give any different interpretation to Section 172 of the 1988 Act, the same would go contrary to the scheme and object of the Act. '' In view of the authoritative pronouncement of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment, once there is no permission to the Insurance company before the Tribunal in terms of Section 170 of the Act, the appeal on quantum of compensation cannot be entertained and accordingly the same is dismissed. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay is also dismissed.