Case Note & Summary
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. filed a Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the judgment and award dated 03.06.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North Goa, Panaji, in Claim Petition No. 69 of 2010. The Tribunal had awarded compensation of Rs. 7,70,000 with 9% interest to the claimant, Mandar Vaman Manerkar, for injuries sustained in a motor accident on 06.11.2008 involving a motorcycle and a van insured by the petitioner. The driver and owner of the van did not contest the claim and were proceeded exparte. The insurance company did not apply for permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to defend the petition on all grounds. The insurance company argued that the award was excessive and that the Tribunal erred in assessing the compensation. The High Court, relying on the Supreme Court decision in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shila Datta & Ors., (2011) 10 SCC 509, held that an insurance company cannot challenge the award on merits without obtaining permission under Section 170 of the Act when the owner and driver are exparte and there is no collusion. The court found that the insurance company had not sought such permission and that the grounds raised did not fall within the limited defenses available under Section 149(2) of the Act. Consequently, the revision application was dismissed as not maintainable.
Headnote
A) Motor Vehicles Act - Insurance Company - Right to Appeal - Section 170, 149(2) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Insurance company cannot challenge award on merits without permission under Section 170 when owner and driver are exparte and collusion not established - Held that the insurance company's revision is not maintainable on grounds other than those specified in Section 149(2) (Paras 4-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the insurance company can challenge the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal without obtaining permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, when the owner and driver remained exparte.
Final Decision
The Civil Revision Application is dismissed as not maintainable. The insurance company cannot challenge the award on merits without obtaining permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Law Points
- Insurance company cannot challenge award on merits without permission under Section 170 of Motor Vehicles Act
- 1988
- when owner and driver are exparte
- collusion not proved
- scope of revision limited to grounds under Section 149(2) of MV Act
Case Details
2020 LawText (BOM) (09) 48
Civil Revision Application No. 6 of 2015
Mr. Emerico Estevam Afonso for the applicant, Mr. R. G. Ramani, Senior Advocate with Mr. P. Kakodkar for the respondent no.1
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Mandar Vaman Manerkar, Sitaram Kasenappa Lamani, Sadanand J. Aldonkar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil Revision Application against judgment and award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
Remedy Sought
Insurance company sought to challenge the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal
Filing Reason
Insurance company aggrieved by the award of Rs. 7,70,000 with 9% interest for personal injuries
Previous Decisions
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North Goa, Panaji, awarded compensation of Rs. 7,70,000 with 9% interest in Claim Petition No. 69 of 2010 on 03.06.2014
Issues
Whether the insurance company can challenge the award on merits without permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 when the owner and driver are exparte.
Submissions/Arguments
Insurance company argued that the award is excessive and the Tribunal erred in assessing compensation.
Claimant argued that the insurance company cannot challenge the award without permission under Section 170 as per the decision in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shila Datta.
Ratio Decidendi
An insurance company cannot challenge the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on merits without obtaining permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, when the owner and driver are exparte and collusion is not established. The insurance company's right to appeal is limited to the grounds specified in Section 149(2) of the Act.
Judgment Excerpts
The learned Tribunal awarded amount of compensation of Rs. 7,70,000/- with 9% interest to be paid jointly and severally to the petitioner and the respondent nos.2 and 3, (driver and owner).
The real issue was that when owner and driver remained absent in collusion with the claimant, whether the insurance company required to obtain permission of the Tribunal under Section 170 of the Act to defend the petition on all grounds available to the driver and owner of the vehicle.
Procedural History
Claim Petition No. 69 of 2010 filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North Goa, Panaji. Tribunal awarded compensation on 03.06.2014. Insurance company filed Civil Revision Application No. 6 of 2015 before High Court of Bombay at Goa.
Acts & Sections
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Section 166, Section 170, Section 149(2)
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 115
