ni5i] i:li1^ "i c' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPELLANT RESPONDENTS t'ble Shrl SunU Kuinar Stnha aad 'ble Shri R. L. Jhaawar, JJ. .A. ( Cl No.261/2002 National Insuraace Coinpany Ltd., City Branch Bhilai, Bhutani Com.plex, G.E. Road, Power House, Bhilai Through fhe Braach Manager, Bilaspur Branch, Bilaspur Branch B-l, Taha Complex lat Floor Riug Road, F^riyadarshiai Nagar, Bilaspur (CG) 495 001 Versus 1. Sundar Bua Gosai S/o Raj Bun. Gosai, aged about 40 years, Occupation Gas Weldcr, R/o Sector - 9, Bhilai, District Durg (CG)- (Claimant) 2. Mohan. Lal S/o Kunwar Lal, scged about 21 years, Occupation Vehicle Dnver, R/o Grani Pataura, P.S. Utai, Tehsil Pataa, Distorict Durg (CG) (Driver) 3. Balwaat Siagh, S/o Keshav Singh, R/o House No. 20 Road, 36, Sector 6, Bhilai, Dista-ict Dui^(CG) (Owner) » Shri Gaiitam Khetrapal, counsel for the appellant. None for respondent No. 1/claunant. None for respondents No.2 and 3 fhough served, •':i'&. \ ,,.,.,^rS^^ ^ :?t?:?'^^!^^L ^! •^SS&Q, ^ ;~EW- ORAL ORDER (02*.12.2009) Per SunU Kiunar Sinha, J. Heard. This is in.surer's appeal agamst fhe award dated 19.12.2001, passed in. Claun Case No. 65/99 by the 4th Additional Motor Accident Claiins Tribunal, Durg (CG). The facts briefly stated are as uader: 1. The respondent No.l/claimaut - Sundar Bun Gosai filed a claiia petition under Section 166 of fhe Motor Vehicles Act, claimuig coinpensation of Rs. 16,00,OOO/- for personal injuries sustained ia the inotor accident, which took place on 9.6.1999 when his bicycle was dashed by the ofFendiag Jeep, bearing registration No. MP 24 GC 0028 on account of rash and negUgent driviag of its driver. The claimaat pleaded that he had sustaiued fractures in both of his legs. A rod was iaserted ia his right leg aad his left leg was amputated twice. 2. The claim was contested by respondents No. l aad 2 (Chvner and Driver) as fhey joiufly ffled a written stateinent, denyiug the contentions raised by the claimant. They furtfaer pleaded that the accident occurred on account of negligence of the claimaat himself, therefore, the clamiaat was not entiUed to receive any amount of conipensation. 3. Respondent No.3, appeUaat hereia also filed its written stateinent aad aa appUcation under Section 170 of fhe Motor Vehicles Act to contest the claim oli aU. available defences. The said appUcation was dismissed by the Tribunal on 12.12.2000 on. the ground that the owuer and fhe driver were contesting fhe claim. 4. The Tribunal recorded a finding vide para 9 of the award that respondent No.l/claunaut sustaiaed fractures ia both of his legs, Firstly, a rod was iaserted iu his teft leg, jl 'apBm uaaq ssq TOirep e TOOT{A ^siiregB uosjgd B ot .io painsui 3Tp oi aiqBpBAB punojS sip uo IHTBIO 3tp ^SSIHOO o^ pTmqujL sip jo noissiui.iad 3(338 01. jsjnsiii UB o^ aado si ^ SSSBO qons m: TKIBIO aip ^saiaoo o^ AUBdmoo aoae.msTi] aq^ pBsiduii 'iou saop {eunquj, aqi 'jaio-mj 'ptIB IIIIBI3 3TR fS3fCi03 IOH saop pamsin siy. jo psjnsni 3IR pUB S^TIBUIIB{0 3Xp TI33dq3q uoisnnoo B si sjaip s^sqA aopBntis B ui '.I3A3AOH •s^ua-ai ao p-tBAB sq^ aSua^teqo o^ iBsddB jo ^qSu oa seq AliBdnioo aoitB-nisui UB 'pagspBs si loy 8861 J° 02,1 TIOT103S v:t psgioads laspsoaid sitoitipuoo 3Tp ssapin ^ip. pl3T[ Api3ai)re sABq 3^% •T:e : jspan SE gg sg tg SBIBJ UT pisq X^ouoSs^o seA\ff mai3t(A (og) egg •o'v'J, (e) EOOZ UI pap:odai 'soq^o pnB i§B?qo-H BuanootN "SA 'PVI "00 soins.msui ptvovyBsi jo aseo sTp ui ijnoo xady sqi jo am^oTp aip jo MSTA nr aottesuadmoo jo mn^iienb aip aSuaiiBqo o-t spiqaA aip jo jainsai aq^ joj siqissTiiuad ^oa ST 1.1 'yv 3TQ. jo Q^ uottoas japun aoissniuad jo aouasqB aq^ ai •6iedvio^) aoire.insai/^llBiiadde sqt. cq pa^uejg ioa SBM saoTtajap 3iqBin3AB HB TIO uirep aq^ ^sa^uoo a^ boy 31R, l-ioqs joj) 8861 1->V s3IOIIl3A JO^O]^ 3Tp JO Q/,1 HOTt33g japan noTgsiHuad 'A.ipauTiiipV •ncstfeztfeai sfi yc^ uoTt^ad Tmep aip. jo 8uT[g jo ap3p mojg mnuite .iad % 6 jo SIBI sip ^B isajaiut jo ^Tiaro^Bd joj ^oaiip OS^B ii "-/000'00'S'sy SB uoTtBsaaduioo jo ^anouiB 3tp p3Tiim-xa}3p ^aanisssssB OAO s^i uo ireanquj, sqj, •3 ·3sod.md pres aip joj suoT^Biado OA4 ogjapun o^ peq I'ON ^uspuodsaj 3Ip pUB 3UOp OSIB SBA Supyejg pTIB p3}J3SUI SBA pOiI ao-n Tte 'Sai ^qSu 3Lp ai •a3TES[ sio sAoqa incxg 83^ gai aTp ai aopB^ndtire xav^ovas SBM sjsip 'vusSvQ jo ao^Tiuoj JO tTm.OOOB UO 'J3A3MOH '33II5[ 3T[1 AOpq ISnl IIIOJj: 1 pa(B^ndtire SBA Sai yai siq pire psAoraiaj SBA\ ^ 'ao js^ itni L n'\ permissioa is graated aad fhe insurer is allowed to t coutest the claim on merits ui that case it is open to the insurer to file aa appeal agatast an award on nierits, if aggrieved. In any case, where aa application for permission is erroneously rejected fhe insurer can challenge only that part of fhe order whUe filing appeal on grounds specified in sub-section (2) of Section 149 of 1988 Act. But such appUcation for pennission has to be fcona fide aad filed at fhe stage when the iusured is required to lead his evidence. So far as obtaitung coiapensation by fraud by the claiuiant fe coiicerued, it is no longer res integra fhat fi-aud vitiates the entire proceeding and in such cases it is open to an insurer to apply to the Tribunal for rectification ofaward. 32. For fhe reasons, our answer to fhe question is that even if no appeal is preferred under Section 173 of 1988 Act by an iusured agamst the award of a Tnbuo.al, it is not pemiissible for aa insurer to file aa appeal questioniug the quautuin of coinpensation as weU as finding as regards negUgence or contributoiy negligence offhe oflFending vehicle". In fhe present case, as stated above, permission uader Section 170 of fhe Motor Vehicles Act was not granted to fhe Insurer/appeUant as fhe claun. was contested by fhe owner and fhe driver of fhe offending vehicle, inasiauch as ttiey took aU avaUable defences to theia. We find fhat in such situation, the application filed under Section 170 of the Act could not have beeii allowed by the Tribunal and the pennission could not have been grauted to the appenant/Iusuraace Coinpany to contest tbe claun on aU available defences, as it is fhe coudition precedent before graating permission uader Sectioa 170 of the Act for fhe Tribunal to record a finding that the owner of the vehicle either was not contestittg t fhe claiin or was in collusion wifh fhe clauaants. As no such inaterial was available on record, ttie Tribunal nghfly rejected ttie application uiider Section 170 of fhe Act aad ttie peniiission was not graated to the appeUaat/ Insuran.cc Coiupaay. In the facts and circuiustances of the case, the Insiirauce Conipaay cannot file an appeal chaUengiag fhe quaatum of coinpensation awarded by tfae Tribunal. That apart, lookuig to ftie iajuries sustained and fhe nature fhereof aad further that fhe left leg of the respondent/claunaat was ainputated troice aad he has suffered permaaent disableinent, we are satisfied fhat the coiupensation of Rs.5,00,000/- awarded by fhe Tribimal to the claiaiant for such injuries aad aniputations sustaiaed by him in fhe inotor accident, is just and proper coiapensatioa ia the facts and eircumstances of fhe preseat case. The appeal ffled by fhe appeUant/Insurance Company, fherefore, is Uable to be disinissed aud is heieby disnussed. There shall be no order as to costs. _ _ _ SdA |: _. sd/\ SunilKumarSinha 1 R.L-Jhanwar Judge ~ | J"d8e sunita