KAILASH GALI Vs. SHANTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these appeals have arisen out of award of compensation passed and judgment delivered in M.V. Claim Case no. 16 of 1996 on 25.2.1999.

(2.) THE claimants of the case are the parents of deceased Vijay Niranjan, an I.F.S. probationer, who died due to motor accident in which the vehicle having registration no. H.R. 45 -0 -114 belonging to State of Haryana Roadways had been involved. The vehicle in quiestion was insured with the appellant -United India Insurance Co. Ltd. of M.A. no. 159 of 1999. On consideration of materials on record an amount of Rs. 24 lacs with interest @ 12% p.a. has been awarded. The same is being challenged in both these appeals. Both the appellants have challenged the quantum and determination of the amount of compensation. At the very first instance. it must be mentioned that on the basis of the recent judgment of the Apex Court the Insurance Company is debarred from challenging the quantum, which is purported to be on merit, unless permission is being taken under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In the present case the question of permission does not arise as the owner of the vehicle i.e. the State of Haryana Roadways has consistently challenged and contested the claim case. In that way, the appeal filed by the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. i. e. M.A. no. 159 of 1999 becomes non -maintainable as has already been held by this Bench in M. A. no. 76 of 2002 disposed of on 1.7.2003. [Reported in 2003 (3) PLJR 599]. The same position had occurred before the Apex Court in the case of H.S. Ahammed anr. vs. Irfan Ahammed & anr. with Maqbool Pasha & anr. as reported in 2002 AIR SCW 2788 equivalent to 2002 (6) SCC 252 wherein also the Apex Court on the above ground the name of the Insurance Company was asked to be struck off from the appellants ' list and then the matter was heard in between the owner of the vehicle and the claimants. The same is the case in the present two appeals also. Even if M.A. no. 159 of 1999 becomes redundant one in view of the above principle as already mentioned then also M.A. no. 252 of 1999 is very much maintainable wherein quantum and determination of the same has been challenged by the owner of the vehicle.

(3.) IN that view of the matter, the impugned judgment in respect of the quantum alone is hereby set aside and the matter is sent back to the Tribunal again for consideration of the quantum matter afresh on the basis of the above judgments, as mentioned above, and also after hearing the counsel for both the parties. The matter should be disposed of within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a copy of this order from the side of either of the parties or from the date of receipt of a copy of this order from this Court.