NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY Vs. HANJU DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the New India Assurance Company Limited, who is the insurer of the vehicle involved in an accident.

(2.) ON 12.12.1993, at about 6.15 A.M., a Government Jeep bearing No. RNY 2667 was going from Kherwara towards Udaipur and there was a head on collision with truck No. HR -02A/0843. The driver of the jeep Rameshwar Lal died on account of the injuries received during the accident. The respondents No. 1 to 6 preferred a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Accident Claims Act and prayer was made to award Rs. 15,01,000/ - as damages. The respondent No. 1 is the widow of the deceased and the respondents No. 2 and 3 are the parents of the deceased. The other three respondents are the minor daughters of the deceased. The respondent No. 7 Praveen Baxi was the owner of the said truck, which was involved in the accident. It is not in dispute that the said truck was insured by the appellant. The claim petition was not seriously contested by the owner or the driver of the truck. The appellant, in its reply, contended that the accident was caused by the deceased Rameshwar Lal who took the jeep wrong side and consequently collided with the truck.

(3.) DURING the course of arguments, the learned Counsel for the respondents raised legal objection about maintainability of the appeal and contendeds that the appellant being insurer, had no locus -standi to prefer an appeal on the gorund that the amount awarded was excess. So far as this objection is concerned, it is not in dispute that mainly the contention of the appellant is to the effect that the learned Tribunal was rather liberal in awarding the amount to the claimants but I find that in view of a decision of the Apex Court delivered in the matter of United India Insurance Co. Limited v. Bhushan Sachdeva, [(2000) 2 SCC 265], all objections raised by the learned Counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 6 are unacceptable and I find that challenging the award on the ground that the awarded amount was unreasonable and excessive is permissible on the part of the Insurance Company. It would be proper to reproduce the observations of the Apex Court in respect of the point in issue and the relevant portion contained in Paras 10 and 11 of the judgment, reads as under: