IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2009 / 21ST ASWINA 1931 MACA.No. 1203 of 2006() ----------------------- OPMV.25/1997 of IIND ADDL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT -------------------------------------- THE DISTRICT INSURANCE OFFICER, KERALA STATE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT, KSFE BUILDING, KOLLAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1,2 &4 ---------------------------------------------- 1. PUSHPANGADHAN, S/O.RAGHAVAN,PARATTACHIRAYIL VEEDU, THRIKKARUVA, PERINAD, KOLLAM. 2. MAIDANI DEVI,SASY BHAVAN, KALLUVATHUKKAL, KOLLAM. 3. SUNIL KUMAR, S/O.PARAMU, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, CHIRAKKARA,EDAVATTAM, KALLUVATHUKKAL. 4. N.PAVITHRAN, S/O.K.V.K.NARAYANAN, VELIYIL VEEDU, THEKKE CHERRY, THRIKKARUVA, KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) FOR R1 SRI.P.SREEKUMAR FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = == == = = = C.M. APPLN. 1315/2006 & M.A.C.A. NO. 1203 OF 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009. J U D G M E N T Ramachandra Menon, J. The third respondent before the Tribunal, the State Insurance Department, has filed this appeal, challenging the sustainability of the Award passed by the Tribunal, directing payment of compensation in respect of the injuries caused to the claimant because of the collision of the autorikshaw with the motorcycle ridden by him. 2. The appeal has been preferred along with a petition to condone the delay of 421 days, which is sought to be condoned for the reasons stated in the affidavit. The delay has been sought to be explained, stating that, it was never because of any wilful laches or deliberate negligence, but for the administrative exigencies as narrated in the affidavit filed in support of the application. After hearing, we find that the delay has been satisfactorily explained and accordingly, the delay is condoned. MACA 1203/2006 2 3. On going through the merits of the case, with regard to the scope of admission, it is seen that the accident occurred on 7.1.1995, when the claimant, while riding the motor cycle, was knocked down on the road by an autorikshaw insured by the appellant, causing injuries, which led to the claim petition. As observed by the Tribunal in para 3 of the Award, only the first respondent filed a written statement, who also choose to abstain from the proceedings after filing the same. It has also been specifically noted that the third respondent, who is the appellant herein, had not filed written statement raising any objection with regard to the claim preferred by the injured. After analysing the facts and reasons, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the autorikshaw. Taking note of the injuries and other relevant aspects, the total compensation payable was fixed as Rs. 1,04,583/- and it was directed to be satisfied by the third respondent/appellant, with interest as specified. Aggrieved by the said Award, the Insurance Department has approached this Court stating that the Tribunal was not correct in fixing the negligence solely on the driver of the autorikshaw and further that the amount awarded is very much on the higher side. 4. As observed above, the claim put forth by the injured was never sought to be contested by the appellant - Insurer by filing any written MACA 1203/2006 3 statement. That apart, the scope of defence of the insurer under the Motor Vehicles Act (though it be the Insurance Department of the State Government, as in the instant case) stands rather restricted to the statutory grounds of defence as provided under Section 149 (2) of the Act. It is settled law that necessary permission has to be obtained for wider defence, by filing separate petition under Section 170 of the Act or else, there should have been a contention to the effect that the insurer had reserved the right to contest the matter on all grounds, based on the reservation clause in the policy. In the instant case, no such permission is stated as obtained, nor any right has been reserved by the Insurer/appellant, for the fact that no written statement was filed. In the above circumstances, the challenge made from the part of the Insurer, against the Award, on negligence and quantum is not sustainable. We do not find any ground to interfere with the Award passed by the Tribunal. The appeal is dismissed accordingly. P.R. RAMAN, (JUDGE) P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE) KNC/-