The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Godambri Devi & Ors.

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?

3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? JUDGMENT: REVA KHETRAPAL, J.

1. This appeal seeks to assail the judgment and decree of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 9th May, 2002 whereby an award in the sum of ` 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) 2011:DHC:3836 alongwith interest thereon was passed in favour of the respondents No. 1 to 6 and against the appellant/Insurance Company.

2. The brief facts relevant for the decision of the present appeal are that on 16th June, 1985, one Shiv Singh, who was waiting at the traffic signal alongwith his cycle was hit by truck No. UTT 7271, driven rashly and negligently by its driver, the respondent No.7 herein. Shiv Singh succumbed to the injuries sustained by him whereupon his legal representatives being the respondents No.1 to 6 herein, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation for his untimely demise.

3. The respondents No. 7 and 8, the driver and owner respectively herein of the offending truck, while admitting in their written statements filed before the learned Claims Tribunal that the respondent No.7 was in the employment of the respondent No.8, denied that on the fateful day he was involved in any accident. The respondent No.8 also pleaded that the vehicle was insured with the appellant/Insurance Company. The Insurance Company in its written statement while controverting the pleas raised in the petition, raised a plea that one Sh. Mahinder Singh, who was the owner of the offending vehicle and who had got insured the vehicle under the policy, had transferred the vehicle in favour of the respondent No.8 (i.e. Mukand Lal, the present owner) and, therefore, the insurance policy had lapsed due to the transfer of the vehicle prior to the alleged accident.

4. The Claims Tribunal while holding the respondent No.7 guilty of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle passed an award in the sum of ` 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) in favour of the respondents No.1 to 6 and directed the appellant to pay the entire award amount with interest.

5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

6. Mr. Pankaj Seth, the learned counsel for the appellant, assailed the award of the learned Claims Tribunal by contending that the learned Tribunal erred in relying upon the provisions of Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to come to the conclusion that the policy of insurance stood transferred in the name of the respondent No.8, who had purchased the vehicle from its erstwhile owner, Sh. Mahinder Singh in the first week of May, 1985 prior to the accident, which had occurred on 16.06.1985.

7. The only other contention sought to be raised by Mr. Pankaj Seth, the learned counsel for the appellant was with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. It is proposed to deal with this contention first.

8. On a query put to him, Mr. Pankaj Seth conceded that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was sought to be challenged but no permission as specified in Section 110- C(2A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (which corresponds to Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988) had been obtained by the appellant/Insurance Company to contest the claim petition on merits and that it was settled law that the Insurance Company has no right to contest the award on grounds available to the insured unless it has sought and obtained permission from the Tribunal to do so. Mr. Seth, however, pointed out that an application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 had been filed by the Insurance Company on which no orders were passed by the learned Tribunal, and therefore the insurance company should be permitted to challenge the quantum of compensation.

9. On going through the records of the Tribunal, however, I find that such an application for permission was filed by the Insurance Company belatedly at the time of arguments and was accordingly not entertained by the Tribunal. It is no longer res integra that an application for permission to contest the claim of a third party must be made by the insured bona fide and filed at the stage when the insured is required to lead his evidence. It has been so held by three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nicolletta Rohtagi and Ors., 2002 ACJ 1950. The relevant part of the judgment reads as under:-

10. Adverting to the other contention of Mr. Seth that the Insurance Policy had lapsed on account of transfer of the vehicle by its erstwhile owner, Mahinder Singh to Mukand Lal, the respondent No.8 herein, the learned Claims Tribunal has elaborately dealt with the matter in paragraphs 12 to 14 of its judgment, which for the sake of convenience are reproduced hereunder:-