Nov - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

More documents

Recommendations

Info

1034 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009 2006 under Sections 279, 304A, Indian Penal Code in Police Station Kurawali, District Mainpuri. The deceased was aged 34 years at the time of his death and was a healthy person. The deceased was an agriculturist and was carrying on the business of sale and purchase of buffaloes, and his monthly income was not less than 7,000/- rupees. An amount of Rs.24,25,000/- with interest @ 12 % per annum was claimed as compensation in the Claim Petition. 3. Joint Written Statement was filed by respondent nos. 8 and 10. The Appellant- Insurance Company also filed its Written Statement. The Tribunal framed four issues. Issue no.1 was as to whether the Driver of the aforesaid vehicle in question while driving the same in rash and negligent manner, hit the said Ram Prakash resulting in the death of the said Ram Prakash. The Tribunal decided the said issue in the affirmative in favour of the claimant-respondent nos. 1 to 7. Issue no.2 was as to whether the vehicle in question was insured with the Appellant-Insurance Company at the time of the accident. The Tribunal held that the vehicle in question was insured with the Appellant-Insurance Company at the time of the accident, and decided Issue no.2 accordingly. Issue no. 3 was as to whether the Driver of the vehicle in question was having a valid and effective licence at the time of the accident. The Tribunal held that the Driver of the vehicle in question was having a valid and effective licence at the time of the accident, and decided Issue no.3 accordingly. Issue no.4 was regarding the relief, if any, to which the claimant-respondent nos.1 to 7 were entitled. The Tribunal held that the claimant-respondent nos. 1 to 7 were entitled to compensation amounting to Rs.4,89,500/- with interest @ 6% per annum. 4. The Appellant- Insurance Company has filed the present appeal against the said award. 5. We have heard Sri Saral Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record filed with the appeal. 6. From the perusal of the record, it is evident that an application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed on behalf of the Appellant- Insurance Company before the Tribunal. However, by the order dated 7.3.2009, the Tribunal rejected the said application. 7. Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 lays down as under:- "170 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 (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
3 All] National Insurance Co.Ltd. V. Smt. Guddi Devi and others 1035 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." Sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 referred to in Section 170 of the said Act is reproduced below:- " (1)............................................................... ....................... (2) No sum shall be payable by an insurer under sub-section (1) in respect of any judgment or award unless, before the commencement of the proceedings in which the judgment or award is given the insurer had notice through the Court or, as the case may be, the Claims Tribunal of the bringing of the proceedings, or in respect of such judgment or award so long as execution is stayed thereon pending an appeal; and an insurer to whom notice of the bringing of any such proceedings is so given shall be entitled to be made a party thereto and to defend the action on any of the following grounds, namely:- (a) that there has been a breach of a specified condition of the policy, being one of the following conditions, namely:-- i.a condition excluding the use of the vehicle- (a) for hire or reward, where the vehicle is on the date of the contract insurance a vehicle not covered by a permit to ply for hire or reward, or (b) for organised racing and speed testing, or (c) for a purpose not allowed by the permit under which the vehicle is used, where the vehicle is a transport vehicle, or d. without side-car being attached where the vehicle is a motor cycle; or (ii) a condition excluding driving by a named person or persons or by any person who is not duly licensed, or by any person who has been disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence during the period of disqualification; or (iii) a condition excluding liability for injury caused or contributed to by conditions of war, civil war, riot or civil commotion; or (b) that the policy is void on the ground that it was obtained by the non disclosure of a material fact or by a representation of fact which was false in some material particular. (3) to (7.....................................". 8. Reading Sections 170 and 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 together, it is evident that in case the Tribunal grants permission to the insurer under Section 170, the insurer will get right to contest the Claim Petition on all or any of the grounds that are available to the person against whom the claim has been made. However, if such permission is not granted by the Tribunal, then the insurer will be entitled to contest the Claim Petition on the limited grounds mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 9. It follows, therefore, that in case an appeal is filed by the insurer against an award in a case where its application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was rejected by the Tribunal, it (insurer) will be able to challenge the award only on the limited grounds mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the said Act.
Page 1 and 2:
3 All] Smt. Katori Devi V. Nawab Si
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
3 All] Kailash Babu Gupta V. State
Page 9 and 10:
3 All] Anil Kumar Vashisth V. State
Page 11 and 12: 3 All] Anil Kumar Vashisth V. State
Page 13 and 14: 3 All] Smt. Sadhana Singh V. State
Page 21 and 22: 3 All] C/M, Lok Bharti Inter Colleg
Page 23 and 24: 3 All] Krishan Kumar V. State of U.
Page 25 and 26: 3 All] Smt. Raman Pandey and others
Page 27 and 28: 3 All] Smt. Shailendra Rai V. State
Page 39 and 40: 3 All] Rishi Pal Singh V. State of
Page 45 and 46: 3 All] Naik R.K. Mahapatra V. Chief
Page 53 and 54: 3 All] Jafar Khan V. State of U.P.
Page 55 and 56: 3 All] New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Page 61: 3 All] National Insurance Co.Ltd. V
Page 65 and 66: 3 All] Vinay Kumar Upadhyay V.State
Page 67 and 68: 3 All] Vinay Kumar Upadhyay V.State
Page 69 and 70: 3 All] Aligarh Muslim University an
Page 71 and 72: 3 All] Aligarh Muslim University an
Page 73 and 74: 3 All] Rishikesh Lal Srivastava V.S
Page 99 and 100: 3 All] Matloob Gaur V.State of U.P.
Page 107 and 108: 3 All] Ashutosh Kumar Tripathi V.St
Page 109 and 110: 3 All] Superintending Engineer and
Page 111 and 112: 3 All] Superintending Engineer and
Page 113 and 114:
3 All] Superintending Engineer and
Page 115 and 116:
3 All] Dr. R.C. Agrawal and another
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
show all

Nov - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?