c 4J€L^-' "b •-U-! 3';5ii:'S IN THE HS'i.'BLE ffl.GH GOJRT OF GHHATTISGARH AT BII.ASPUR. <c<r^ MISC. APPEAL N0. OF 2004 -L..<^(..'^,^J ^PPELLAMT WM-ffiPLlCMr ^N0.3. y United Inejia Insurance Conpaay Lini.tedT.P. Nagar, Korba, Tah. and Mstrict Korba (C.G.) (insurer of accidented vebicle},,; JffiRSUS B£SPONDENTS ^- ^s^^ ^^s^' \^- [?•- &- .^^^^- .^"p7"" -nt'\ ~' .1 •f:^' 1. Snt«] Satya Devi widow of Shyamlal aged 35 years. 2,|nChMidrashekhar aged 23 years sen >f late Shyam Lal Patel. 3<f, Chudamani a9ed 23 years son of late Shyamlal Patel. All bycafefed'ate.l.resident of Balco Nagar, Qr. No. 845/4/AP.S. Balco Nagar, Tahsil & Mstrict .Korba (C.G.). Cl aimaits/^plican'ts Ravlraj Parihar @ S^ideq> Panda, ?6d 22 years son ef late Motiman ^ Slngh, Resident of Baleo Nagar, Qr. No. 234/3/A Police S-tation Baieo Nagar, Tahsil and DistriBt Korba (C.G.) (Driyer of accidented vehiele). 5. Sat., Rajkumari wAdow of Motiman (}^~ Singh aged 45 years, resident of -~ Balco Nagar, Qc. No. 334/3/AP.S. Baleo Nagar, Tah. & Distriet Korba (G«G*) ('Reg.i.stered ownez of accide- nted vehicle). Non-^ipliGant No., l &_^ ^PPEAL WQES. SECTICM 173 OF MOTOB ^HICLES_ X:T 1988. Ifift '« ^ •^' ( CLAU4 IN APPEA VAUED AT iis. lA'12.^96/- ), -2- XI-HC-22 a»-i!iti9{? itt sn^T^ir R-fi=b3tl^T it>H {lf?cT m\-ws. 3ST '<IWIM<<, QTnWIS, RtClltfy 311^1 4SI<*> fllMI Shlich ••••••••••••••••••••• g^ 200 fcl'b«A \. \ 3f)^T g^draT ?rf?(F DMSION BENCH: Hon'bte Shri A.K. Patnaik, CJ & Hon'bleShri L.C.Bhaloo, J.| 30/03/2005:- MISC.APPE^. N0.588 6F 2004: - Heard Mr. H.B. Agraw^ learned counsel for the appellant| This is an appeal filed bj Section 173 of the Motor 08/04/2004, passed by the Se(;c Tribuna! (FTC), Korba in Claim Rs.12,12,296/- in favour of respc|idente/claimants United India Insurance Co. Ltd. under Vehi<(les Act, 1988 against the award ctated ifcond AddiUonal Motor Accident Claims ICase No.30 of 2004 awardlng a sum <rf The ground taken tn the was wrong in not framing the i|i pleaded by the appellant and reduced after apportioning th^ deceased. On 09/06/2004, this appellant issued noticestothe and in response to the notice, appeared for respondents 1 t^) objection to ttie maintainabtlity the insurer E^ainst the award amount was liable to be reducetl <»>l<lfCT<fl-1IIHCI'l'ffrs'^ <Rl'tdl< ^3Tf^lT3n^T , Sr. Adv., vwth Miss Shipra Biswas 4pp®almemorandum Is that ttie Trlbunal |ssue of contributory n^ljgence though the compensation should have been contribution to the accident by the Utat Coi^rt after hearing learned counsel far the r^spondents on the quesUon of admission |Mr. Sanjay PatBl, teamed counsel, has 3. Mr. Patel raised a preliminary <)T the appeal saying that the appeal by l&n ttie ground that the compensaBon on account of contributory negligence (<fli^^) 01 -ca-^2S-^ XI-HC-22 an^T^iT ^rrosn^T sbHWtfftn a- |?g \!^. ^: ^^ 3^ •<<i<<i«<i,»Tn«'i<o,Riciitiy 3ii^i ^acti IIIMI »i*iicn---•-•••••••••••••••• gq- 200 R<>«A •w^rs^iraT^fer 2-+ on the part of the decease<j specifled in Section 170 of| satisfied and as a matter of Tribunal to the Insurance C< tiie Tribunal on the grounds 149(2)ofthesaidAct. In of the Supreme Court in Chandigarh Vs. Nicolletta (Civil) 860. Paragraphs 31 hereunder: I, was not maintainable as e conditions the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 were not fact no permission was granted by the ^mpany to contest the proceedings before c|therthanthe grounds mentioned in SecUon su|3port of his contention he eited a judgment case of National Insurance Co. Ltd, fltohtagiand olhers, reported in 2002 SAR |& 32 of the aforesaid judgment are querted hslve colllision "31. B We conditions precedent is satisfied, an lnsurant» to challengethe awarc( where there is a insured or the insure<l ftirther, the Tribunal Company to contest an insurer to seek pe( e claim on the grou|id person against who^n permission is grantefl contest ttieclaim on inSurer to fite an app^al aggrieved. In any <M'i|Ic'l41-f HI*l«Tfffec^<(S]^;K ^Slf^lITSTI^T already hetd that unless the sbecified in Section 170 of 1988 Act Company has no right <rf app^d on merits. However, in a situaton between the claimants and does not contest the claim and, |does not implead the Insurance claim in such cases it is open to t-mission of the Tribunal to contest available to the insured orto a a claim has been made. If and the insurer is allowed to rherils in ttiat case it is open to the against an award on mertts, if case where an appllcation for trie ('ft^^f^) XI-HC-22 3^ •^wi<n<<, ®Tflw'is,Rldiylj< 3ll^l <4s|th IIICTI yi*fiv>'"""""""""" ^Fj' '' 200 R|*«A sn^rrqir R'li'sbsn^r St>*< flf?tT •?".' ^^^^ I^:-'^£t^77 311^1 gwiwofer permission is erron challengeonty'thatpE Srounds speclfied in 1988 Act. But such bona fide and flled required to lead his compensafa'on by firau no longer ws intet proceeding and in su applytothe Tribunal i^ously rejected the insurer ean ;|rt <rf ttie order while ffling appeal on Isub-section (2) of Section 149 of ^ppHGation for permission has to be |at the stage when the insured is evldence. So far as obtaining (I by the claimant is concemed, it is that fraud vitiates the enUfe i(sh cases it is open to an insurer to ftr rectificatiQn ofaward. 'te^ra 32. Fortt the quesUon is ttiat e Section 173 of 1988 of a Tribunal, jt is not appeal questioning th as findings as reg negligence ofttie offei It will be clear from the afot unless theconditfons prece^ are satisfied, the Insurance the award on meritsand in al the claimants and the insur^d it is open to ths insurer to s4 claimon thegroundavailabl^ a clainft has been made and <t>i<<F(i<(1-< tii*i<iTffte<A<Ri«i< ^sii^irsn^T (e aforesaid rMsons, our answer to |/en ifnoappeal is preferred under 4kct byan insured ^ainst the avrard 1 permissible for an insurer to file an i^ quantum of compensation as well jards negligence or contributory jiding vehicte." tesakl judgment of the Supreme Court that jent specified in Section 170 eftheAct 1988 (pompany has no right of appeal to challenge Isituation where ttiere is a cotlusion bebween ortheansured does notcQnt^tthectaim, tek permlssion of the TriBunal to contest Uie tothe insured or to a person against whom |f such permission is grarrted andthe insurer ('fl^y^-) fc S1I^^S:S&- XI-HC-22 3^ •<ii<<ii-i<i, gTnwis, fciciiuy 3il^,'i Msich li*<CTisniict»••"••'•'v'"••••••••• fl^ ^00 R<)«A sn^r^r f^ffesn^r StlHII' Vf^S StiHf^) :ji3WN)*||,s •li;«- 3<i^i ^wiWHfer ^1 atainst is allowed to contest the clalm insurer to file an appeal Otherwise, the quantum of insurer in an appeal uncler qecbo clear from the aforesaid judgtnent Section 170 of the Act 198$ insurer to question Uie quanttim as regards negligence or vehicle. On perusal of the permission was applied for appellant to contest the and no permission has been that regard. claln °t)i<il<'i<fl-( tiiiiiTfffei<i) tRi'wit ^aTf^TTSII^T on merits, in that case it is open to the the award on merits, ff aggrieved. cjompensatfon cannot be challenged by the gecb'on 173 of the Act 1988. It will also be that unless the conditions specified in are satisfied, it is not permfssible for an of compensation aswellas the findings lcontributoiy negligence of the offending rfecords of the Tribunal, we find that no (inder Section 170 of the Act 1988 by the of ttie respondents/ctaimants on merits Igranted by the Tribunal to the appellants in In view of Ihe afore^aid decision of the Supreme Court, this appeal is not maintainable antl the ^ime is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- L.C.BHADOO Judge (Ift^y^-)