Himachal Pradesh High Court
FAO/374/2005 of ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. Vs RUPLA DEVI on 26 December 2008
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO No. 374 of 2005 Date of decision : 26.12.2008 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. …Appellant Versus Rupla Devi and others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
3
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
FAO No. 374 of 2005
Date of decision : 26.12.2008
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
…Appellant
Versus
Rupla Devi and others …Respondents
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?[1] No.
For the appellant: Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents No. 1 & 2: Mr. B.K.Malhotra, Advocate.
For the respondent No. 3
Mr. J.L.Bhardwaj and Mr. R.K.Negi, Advocates.
Per Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral)
This appeal filed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandi, dated 1.6.2005, can be disposed of on a short ground since the same is not maintainable.
The learned Tribunal vide the impugned award has awarded compensation of Rs.1,30,000/- in favour of the claimants. Admittedly, the Insurance Company did not seek leave of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act to contest the claim on all grounds.
Section 170 reads as follows:-
“Impleading insurer in certain cases.- Where in the course of any inquiry, the Claims Tribunal is satisfied that –
(a) there is collusion between the person making the claim and the person against whom the claim is made, or 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. Yes.
(b) the person against whom the claim is made has failed to contest the claim, it may, for reasons to be recorded 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, without prejudice to the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of Section 149, the right to contest the claim on all or any of the grounds that are available to the person against whom the claim has been made.”
The law is well settled that the Insurance Company cannot challenge the award except on the grounds which it is permitted to raise under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act unless it obtains leave of the Court under Section 17 of the Act. Since such leave was not obtained, the present appeal is not maintainable. Reference in this behalf may be made to the Apex Court judgements i.e.Narendra Kumar and Anr. Vs. Yarenissa and Ors. (1998) 9 SCC 202, Chinnama George and Ors. Vs. N.K.Raju and another (2000) 4 SCC 130, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Chandigarh vs. Nicolletta Rohtagi and Ors. (2002) 7 SCC 456 and V.Subbulakshmi and Ors. Vs. S. Lakshmi and another, 2008(2) Scale-218.
Therefore, without going into the merits of the case, it is held that the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is not maintainable and the same is accordingly rejected.
December 26, 2008 ( Deepak Gupta ), J. ™