UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SHARDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the insurance company on two points. The first point is as to whether the liability of the insurance company was unlimited, as taken by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal deciding the case and the second point is as to whether the quantum of compensation granted was exorbitant, in the circumstances of the case.

(2.) On the first point, the learned counsel for the insurance company now feels satisfied that he has no case, as under the policy extra premium has been paid for making the liability of the insurance company unlimited. He, therefore, does not press the first point. So far as the second point is concerned, an insurance company can contest the case on merits of grant of compensation only in exceptional circumstances. This is an appeal arising out of an accident, the claim petition in respect of which was governed by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The grounds on which the insurance company could defend the claim petition were limited and on the point of quantum of compensation the insurance company could not contest the case. Section 110-C (2-A) of the Act provided that where, in the course of any inquiry, the Claims Tribunal is satisfied that (i) there is collusion between the person making the claim and the person against whom the claim is made, or (ii) the person against whom the claim is made has failed to contest the claim, the Tribunal may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, direct that the insurer who may be liable in respect of such claim, shall be impleaded as a party to the proceeding and the insurer so impleaded shall thereupon have the right to contest the claim on all or any of the grounds that are available to the person against whom the claim was made.

(3.) In this case, no permission has been sought from the Tribunal or this court for contesting the case on other grounds than the grounds that were available to the insurance company. Merely because in the memorandum of appeal a ground is taken that the compensation granted by the Tribunal was exorbitant, it does not mean that this court has automatically permitted the appellant, by admitting such an appeal, to raise all the grounds. It is true that the owner of the vehicle did not contest the case before the Tribunal and did not put a single question to the witnesses examined on behalf of the claimant. But that by itself would not lead us to believe that permission to contest the case on all grounds was granted to the insurance company, especially when such a permission has to be granted in writing, after recording reasons. Both the grounds on which the appeal was made, therefore, fail and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.