Case Note & Summary
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. filed three writ petitions (WP No. 12529/2021, 12530/2021, and 12532/2021) before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, challenging the awards passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in favour of the claimants (Arun Premchand Bakliwal, Vinayak Fakirao Bodkhe, and Rustum Laxman Dhumal respectively). The Insurance Company sought to quash and set aside the awards on the ground that the quantum of compensation awarded was excessive. The respondents, including the claimants and the State authorities, opposed the petitions, arguing that the Insurance Company had an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and that the writ petitions were not maintainable. The Court, after hearing the parties, held that the writ petitions were not maintainable as the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal. The Court noted that the Insurance Company could have filed an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and if there was any delay, it could have sought condonation of delay. The Court dismissed all three writ petitions, granting liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, if so advised. The Court also disposed of the civil applications filed in the writ petitions.
Headnote
A) Motor Vehicles Act - Appeal - Pre-deposit - Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The Insurance Company filed writ petitions challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal without availing the alternative remedy of appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Court held that the writ petitions are not maintainable as the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal, and the Insurance Company cannot circumvent the requirement of pre-deposit of the entire awarded amount under Section 173 by filing a writ petition. (Paras 1-5) B) Motor Vehicles Act - Limitation - Condonation of delay - Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The Court observed that the Insurance Company could have filed an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and if there was any delay, it could have sought condonation of delay. The Court held that the writ petitions are not maintainable and dismissed them, granting liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, if so advised. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against an award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal when the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and whether the Insurance Company can challenge the quantum of compensation without depositing the entire awarded amount.
Final Decision
The Court dismissed all three writ petitions as not maintainable, granting liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, if so advised. The civil applications were also disposed of.
Law Points
- Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act
- 1988
- requirement of pre-deposit for appeal
- maintainability of writ petition against award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
- alternative remedy of appeal
- limitation period for filing appeal
