<0 T7 G) V .\ (Q IN THE HIGH COURT OF TUDICATURE AT BILASPV& TCHHATTISGAItHI MISC. APPEAL 1^6. f °^YOF 200^ MISCELIANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHIGLES ACT. 1988^^^ h»» ^ APPELLANT/ INSURER [ational Insurance Co. Ltd., Through Assistant Manager National Insurance Co. Ltd., B-l, Taha Complex, First Floor, Ring Road, Priyadarshmi Nagar Bilaspur (Chhattisgath) VERSUS RESPONDENTS/ NONAPPLICANTS '"z .ff)w %w /^7 /^/ ^^ / ^ "f P. Chandrashekhar , Aged Aged about 36 years, R/o Qfcc. No.3-A, Steeet No. 19, Sectot-11, Khursipar, Bhilai, District Durg [CG] Naresh Sahu, S/o Jaylal Sahu ^l^aged about 26 years, R/o Sha'nkar Nagar Chhawni, P.S.JamuI, Dist. Durg [CG] X-M/s Raipur Rotocast Ltd., ^587, Uda Industrial Area, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 4. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office near Thakkar Chambers, Project Autotnobfles, G. E. Road, Bhilai, District Durg (CG) ^- RESPONDENTS/ [CLAIMANTS] S^^Sfnt.Siunan Mohta, W/o Late Rakesh Ratan Mohta, aged about 33 years, ^Baby Khushboo Mohta, D/o Rakesh Ratan Mohta, aged about 07 years, minor-through legal guardian-mother Smt. SumanMohta, ^ ^. Smt.Taradevi Mohta,W/oRam Chandra Mohta, agedabout . ^l?out, 58 years 8. Rani Chandra Mohta,S/o Shri Khetatam Mohta, aged about '^ 64^o^fs, ^^:-' , "• Respondent No. 5 to 8 aU are /^ Residents of Oppt. Anuradlia Apartment, Geeta Nagar, Raipur [Chhattisgafh] MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTORVEHICLEACT 1988 ^ 1 11 "^ ^...^ OF CHHAmS6ARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: ' IAR.NAWAL ^ARWAL JJ_ M.A.NQ.1064/2004 NQtionaJ Insurance Co. Ltd. Biiaspyr Vs P. Chandrasekhar A others c Pr^s^tlt^ ^ Mr, Sanjay K Agarwal, Advocate with Mr. 5, Sharma, Advocate for the appellanT, (26th October. I.M. Quddvsi. J; 1. Heard. (^ 2, The appellant-Insurance Company HQS filed.this appea! under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicies Act, 1988 against the aword dated 03.08.2004 passed by the leGrned Motor Accident Ciaims Tribuna!, RQipur (C&) (for brevity 'the claims trjbunQH in-Cloi.m Case . No.10/02 fastening .the iiabiiityof.the QppeiJant insurance companyto satisfythe a^Qrd..- • 3, On account of accidentaJ deoth of deceased Rakesh RQtan..Mohta/the clQimants, who are widow, daughter and parents respectively of thc deceQsed/have filed -a'eteiim petitian before the daims tribunai seeking compensatlon to the tuns of Rs.50,00,000/-. 4» The claims tribunal vi'de impugneda^cird dated 03.08.2004 allo^ed'the •cbjm petition of the ciaimants and oi^arded. a bf Rs.8,07/385A .as compCTSation abng with int@rest.@ 9% p«a» from the date of 'filmg of th@ claim.petition til! the date of actuQipayment^ 5« Before entering. mto fh@ merits of/.the case, Mr. AgQrwal, learned counsel fo.r the appeliGnt-insurGnce has^very fGiriy submits that in'thi^ permission ynder.Section 170 o.f the Motor Vehicies Act, 1988 .has not agranted to the appeliant to; contes't the .ca.^@ on qu:Qntum< •L, <- ^ 6.. Section 170 ofthe Mot.or Vehicles Act, 1988 reads as under : "170. Ittipteadliig igisyr^r lii c@rtaii.eas€S<mW'here in the course of any inqusry, the Claims Tribunal i's satisfied th.at - (a) ther.e is co|!usion beti^een the perso'n making-the cbim. and the person against whom the cbjm ismade.ar (b) the person' agQinst yi<?hom the cJQim is rnQde has failed to. contest th@ claim, it may, for.reasons to be recorded in ^riting, direct that the insurer ^ho may be li.Gbie- in respect of such claim, shal! be impieGded as.a parlty to'the proceedinQ and the insurer-so impieaded shall thereupon have, mth-out prejudice to .the provisions containedin sub-section (2) of ^ection 149, theright to contest.the claim on all or any of the graunds that are avajiable to. the person aQainst whom the cbim has made/' •7, In the matter of Nati©jial.Insyrmcc Ltd. VB< Rohtmi and othsrs reported in 2:003 (3) TAC 293 (SQ the Hori'bie ApexCourt has held thus:- "31. We • have aiready held that unless the conditions Drecedent SDecsfied in Section 170 of .1988 Act is. satisfied, Insurance Company has no right of QppeGJ to chaiienge the a^ard on merits......^^/" 8. In viei^ of the above settied position of bi¥,the instant on'behalf of the appeliant Insurance Company, in absence of permissson under Section 170 of'the Act 1988, js' not maintainable and thc same.ig •djsmigsed, 9. No order as to costs. - Sd/- I.M. Quddusi Judge RoshanA Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge