IN THE HIGH COURT QFJUDJCATURE AT BILASPURJCHHATTISGARH] MISC. APPEAt'NO.^ t)F 200^> /-> AB.PELLANT ^INSURANCE RESPONDENTS y ^'CLAIMANTS . Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance c Company Itd. Manendragarh Through Divisinol Manager Oriental Insurance co. Itd. Division office Geetanjali Bhawan Main Road Korba (CG) VERSUS ^A< Smt. Gouri Gupta W/o Late Rajeshwer Gupta Aged 38 years ^.- ^" ,2: Ravishankar.Gupta S/o Late Rajeshwer Gupta Aged 20 Years ?. |<?..^^^^..' Ku. Ragini Gupta D/o Late <^.y ./(? Rajeshwer Gupta Aged 18 Years ^:...^' ^^••"" 4. Moti Prasad Gupta S/o Shri RamSurat ^^ Sao Aged 67 years 5..- Smt. Batasi Devi W/o Moti Prasad Gupta Aged 65 Years (All Residence of Village Chorkidihi Police chouki . Lundra P.S. Lundra District Sarguja ) OWNER DRIVER ^ 6. Pankaj Jaishwal S/o Suresh Jaishwal R/o Lakhanpur Disst. Sarguja C.G. 7, Mahendra Pandey S/o Pholeshwer Pandey Aged 48 R/o Village Adoura P.8. Dev District Aurangabad Presentlay R/o Namna In back side of Old Employment Office Ambikapur P.8. Ambikapur District Sarguja C.G. fcr ?t%R S^ u APPEAL U/S 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT AGAINST THE AWARD/ORDER DATED 30.^2007 PASSED BY THE^FIRST ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, AMBIKAPUR, IN CLAIM CASE N0. 48/2005 PRESIDING OVER BY SHRI T.CHURENDRA . HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR DB: Hon»bleI. M. QUDDUSI & Hoa'fele G. MINHAJUDDIN, JJ APPBLLANT: RBSPONDBNTS: M. A (C) No. 843/2008 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Smt, Gouri Gupta & others MI8C. APPBAL UNDBR SBCTION 173 OF THB MOTOR VBHICLES ACT. 1988 Appearance: Mr. Ghan Shyain Patel, counsel for fhe appeUants, Mr. Shakti Raj Siaha, couusel for respondents 1 to 5. ORAL ORDBR (05.08.2011) Per I.M. OUDDUSI. J, 1. AU fhe respondents except the driver i.e., respoudent no.7 have been served, Therefore, service ofrespondent no,7 is dispensed wifh. 2. This appeal has been filed by fhe Insuraace Conipaiiy against fhe iaipugned award dated 30.03.2007 passed by fhe Ist Additional Motor Accident Claims Tnbunal, Ambikapiir, Distdct Sarguja in Claiin Case No,48/2005 ia so far as it relates to quaatuni part only. 3. Brief facts of fhe case as per fhe version of fhe claimaats are fhat on 21.04.2005 deceased Rajeshwar Prasad Gupta was going to village Bai'aili from Ambikapur by ridiag Hero Honda Motorbike bearing Regn. No. C.G. 15-ZH/9513 (Old No. 27- D/9618) for attendiag his duty. At about 7.15 a.iii., on fhe Maia road of village Chaiadra, a Truck bearmg "gs^' :lii /oip pire §uip330ojd 31^ o^ A^red B s^ p^pB^dun oq ipqs 'uzrep qons jo ^oods^j ui ^iqBii oq ABTCT oqM jQjnsin Qip. VQVft ^OQJlp 'SupUM Ul pOpJODM ^q O^ SUOSBM JOJ 'A^Td ^T 'uirep sq^ ^so^uoo o^ p^irej s^q ^pBui ST xarep orp uioqM ^sureg^ uosj^d oq^ (q) JO <9pBUI si uirep oip nzoqM ^sureS^ uosj^d 3ip pire nxrep 3Ip Sup[BUI UOSJQd 3Ip U99M^3q uoTsn]joo ST ojorp (^) -- ^rp pogsi^Bs ST yeunqTJj, STOTBIQ oxy. 'Annbui Arre jo osjnoo 31^ xn M^qM—*s?^8iso IIIB^TOO c( .eojnsiiii SuipBoidroi "041» -:jopun SB spBai OZ,T uoi^oas '8861 ^°V sapiqaA-lo^oW sqijo 02.T uoTzaas jopun uoissTUUQd orp p^ure^qo ^ou s^q AiredxnoQ soirejusui - ^TTB]j3ddB ^rp ^rp ^uopiA^ ST ^T 'pJOOQJ 9TO. JO ^esnjsd iaojj CS •VAN stpjo OZT s/n uo^onddB 9ip jo uoisp^p joj ^unquj, sinreiQ ^y. o^ j^^em oip gnruniiM joj p^A^jd s^q aq 'aiojQjsqj, *p3pp3pun poureuiM Qures 3ip ^nq p^ig S^M VAM ^1:R J° 02<T s/n uo^oi[ddB 3ip ^BTp p^nSje s^q ^irenaddB wy. joj psunoo p^xue^q ••^ •sp^oq SUOIJ^A uo -/OOOtfOO'OS*sa J° uoT^BSUQdnioo IB^O^ jo pjeAve Qip. joj ^oy sopiqQyv jo^opy ^ip jo 99^ s/n uoi^ad xrqBp p^ff} ^ABq s3Ai^^u3S9j[d9j ^QSs[ /s^u^pu^dop Suioq s^xieuirep ^qj, *-/S09<'OT*sy J° AiB^es Aiipuoui ^ SIHMBJP S^M pxre j^qoBQ^ ^rreisissv W8t SB §UP[JOM ^rreAiQg^uQmujQAOO B S^M sq 'SJB^A gl7 ^noq^ p9§B SBM p^SBQOQp 9q^ ^UQpTOO^ JO 3UIp 9Ip IV *^u^ic4^9j^ jo osjnoo oip SuLm.p ^idsoq xn pQTp pTIB SQTjnfui SUOAQTjS p^Ure^SUS pBS^Jj JBMqs^fe^ ^qoxqAV o^ 3np ^pAojo^om ^rp p^qs^p jQuirem ^u9ST][§ou pire qs^j m ^•ou ^uopuodsM ^q u^ATJp Sm^q S^M q3TIIM Z,S/<0/OZtoN*US9y iasurer so impleaded shall fh.ereupon have, without prejudice to fhe provisions contaiaed ia sub-section (2) of section 149, fhe right to contest fhe clami on aU or aay of ftie grounds that are available to fhe person agamst whoin fhe claitn has been niade/' 6. Iu fhe iastan.t case, at the very outset, titie insurer was already unpleaded as a party/respondent no,3 in ftie claiin petition. Clamiaat No, 1 Goun Gupta has examuied hersetf as A.W. 1 aad she was also cross-examiaed by fhe Insuraace Coinpaay, Thereafter, anofher claunaat witaess namely Moti Prasad Gupta (A,W,2) was also cross exaaiiaed by fhe insuraace coinpaay. However, Nepal Chaad (A.W-3) was not cross examiaed by fhe appeUant/Insuraace Company fhough opportunity was given to it to cross exaimne. Besides the above, written stateiaent was also filed by fhe owner of fhe vehicle contesting fhe claun. A perusal of fhe order sheets of the Tribunal shows fhat opportunity was given by fhe Tribunal to adduce evidence on behalf of fhe iasurer, but it did not produce witnesses aad fherefore, fhe Tribunal has declared its evidence closed, Further, Pankaj Jaiswal (owner) aad fhe Maheudra Kumar Paadey (driver) fhemselves came iato witaess box aad raade fheir stateraents on oath. They were also cross exammed by fhe leanied counsel for fhe appeUaat iasurance coinpaay. 7. In view of fhe above discussion, we are of fhe opiaion fhat fhe owner of fhe vehicle was not in. coUusion with fhe clahnaats. Further, fhe Claims Tribunal had given ample opportunity to fhe appellaat/ Insuraace Company but it did not avail. LilliL sy^ /f^\ i 8:..,.:...-... i I, ':*s3i 1 Y '^-y 0,'% 8. The Insurance Corapaay was solely responsible to see fhat its appUcation should have been decided but ia the mstant case, it failed to press fhe appUcation aad as such tf aa appUcation was not pressed during fhe entire pendency of fhe claun petition, it is not open for fhe Insuraace Compaay to plead that its appUcation u/ s 170 of fhe Act to contest reuiain.ed undecided. The purpose of fiUng of appUcation u/ s 170 of fhe Act is fhat ftie iasurer niay get fhe right to contest but ia fhis case, fhe Tribunal has crossed fhe stage of filing of wntten Stateinent which has already been filed by it, thereafter started recordiag evidence aad till fhen fhe msurer did not press the appUcation. If fhe iasurer was uot cautious froin fh.e very begianiag that it shoxild have obtamed permission by pressing appUcation which was not pressed, fhen it is not open for the insurer to say fhat its appUcation seekiag penaission u/ s 170 of fhe Act reinained pendiag. 9. In fhe above back ground, Hon^ble fhe Apex Court ia case of Shankareiyya V. United Jndia Jnsurance Co. I/td., AIR 1998 SC 2968 held fhat fhe Insuraace Compaay when impleaded as party by ftie Tribunal caa be pennitted to contest fhe proceediags on merits only if the conditions precedent mentioned ia Section 170 are found to be satisfied and for fhat purpose the Insurance Coinpany has to obtain order ia writmg Jfrom fhe Tribunal which should be a reasoned order by the Tribunal aad unless that procedure is followed fhe Insuraace Coiapaay caanot have a wider defence on nxerits fliaa what is avatlable to it by way of statutoiy defence. The same view was reiterated ia series of ofher decisions iacluding Rita Deid 1 '• r;.' \ (Smt.) cmd athers Vs. New India Assurance Co< Ltd and another (2000) 5 SCC 113 wherein fhe Apex Court held that if fhe Insurao.ee Coiapaay had not obtamed permission froin the Tribunal before fiUng fhe appeal, the appeal preferred by the Insuraace Coinpaay before fhe High Court would not be inaiatauiable ia law. Furfher iii ftie inatter of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nicolletta Rohtagi and others reported ia (2002) 7 SCC 4S6 it has been observed that <(we have already held fhat uuless fhe conditions precedent speci&ed in Section 170 of 1988 Act is satisfied, Insuraace Coinpany has no right of appeal to chaUenge the award on laerits^ 10. In view of the above, fhe contention raised by ftie learaed counsel for fhe appeUaat that fhe appUcation of fhe Insuraace Compaay for permission u/s 170 remaiaed undecided aiid fhus it caa challenge the award on fhe question of quaatuni is not sustamable. 11. Therefore, fhe appeal agamst quantiun is not inaintaiaable. Accordingly, it is dismissed, No order as to cost(s)., Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge Rao i"r';llU" !•