Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal filed by the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. against the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raigad at Alibag dated 28.11.1997, awarding compensation of Rs.2,40,000/- to the respondent/claimant, Shri K.M. George Kutty @ Raju. The insurance company challenged the award on merits. However, the respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal, relying on the Supreme Court judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nicolletta Rohtagi & Ors., 2002 ACJ 1950. The court considered Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which allows the insurer to be impleaded and contest the claim on all grounds only if the Tribunal is satisfied that there is collusion between the claimant and the person against whom the claim is made, or that the person against whom the claim is made has failed to contest the claim. In the absence of such satisfaction recorded by the Tribunal, the insurer's right to contest is limited to the grounds available under Section 149(2) of the Act. The court held that since no permission under Section 170 was sought or granted, the appeal filed by the insurance company on merits was not maintainable. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Motor Vehicles Act - Appeal by Insurer - Maintainability - Section 170, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Insurer cannot challenge award on merits unless Tribunal records satisfaction of collusion or failure to contest by the insured - Appeal dismissed as not maintainable - Held that without permission under Section 170, insurer's appeal is limited to grounds under Section 149(2) (Para 2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the insurance company can maintain an appeal against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on merits without obtaining permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988?
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed as not maintainable. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Section 170 of Motor Vehicles Act
- 1988
- maintainability of appeal by insurer
- grounds of challenge limited to statutory defences under Section 149(2)
- requirement of prior permission from Tribunal
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (04) 138
First Appeal No.570 of 2000
Mr. S.M. Vidyardhi for the appellants, Mr. G.S. Hegade with Mr. Lokesh for Respondent No.1
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Shri K.M. George Kutty @ Raju & Anr.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal by insurance company against award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
Remedy Sought
Insurance company sought to challenge the compensation award on merits
Filing Reason
Insurance company aggrieved by the award of Rs.2,40,000/- in favour of claimant
Previous Decisions
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raigad at Alibag awarded Rs.2,40,000/- on 28.11.1997
Issues
Whether the appeal filed by the insurance company is maintainable without permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988?
Submissions/Arguments
Respondent/claimant raised preliminary objection that appeal is not maintainable as no permission under Section 170 was obtained, relying on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nicolletta Rohtagi.
Appellant insurance company argued on merits of the award.
Ratio Decidendi
An insurance company cannot maintain an appeal on merits against an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal unless the Tribunal has recorded satisfaction under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 regarding collusion or failure to contest by the insured. Without such permission, the insurer's right to challenge the award is limited to the grounds specified in Section 149(2) of the Act.
Judgment Excerpts
Mr.Hegade, appearing for the respondent/claimant, raised preliminary objection to the maintainability of this appeal. He relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2002 ACJ 1950 [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nicolletta Rohtagi & ors.].
It is with reference to Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which provides as; 'Section 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 proceedings 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.'
Procedural History
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raigad at Alibag passed an award on 28.11.1997 granting Rs.2,40,000/- to the claimant. The insurance company filed First Appeal No.570 of 2000 before the Bombay High Court challenging the award. At the hearing, the respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability. The High Court heard the preliminary objection and dismissed the appeal.
Acts & Sections
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: 170, 149(2)
