S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No.656/99 National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Ganga Devi & ors. and two connected appeals. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUARE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. JUDGMENT (1) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 656/99 National Insurance vs. Ganga Devi & ors. Company Ltd. (2) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 657/99 National Insurance vs. Jeewani & ors. Company Ltd. (3) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.658/99 National Insurance vs. Ram Lal & ors. Company Ltd. under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment and award dated 31.3.1999 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Bikaner in Claim Case Nos.100/97, 99/97 and 102/97 respectively. Date of Judgment: September 25, 2008. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.Sanjeev Johari for the appellant. Mr. Rajesh Joshi ) S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No.656/99 National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Ganga Devi & ors. and two connected appeals. 2 Mr. S.K. Sankhla ), for the respondents. Mr. Vineet Jain ) BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the parties. Because of one accident, several persons injured and one died, because of which total nine claim cases were filed by the different claimants. All the cases were decided by common order dated 31.3.1999 by the learned Judge, Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Bikaner. The claim cases as well as the amount awarded in those cases are as under:- Claim Case Number Amount awarded 1. Case No. 99/97 Rs. 93, 800/- 2. Case No. 100/97 Rs. 42,100/- 3. Case No. 101/97 Rs. 12,000/- 4. Case No. 102/97 Rs. 20,000/- 5. Case No. 103/97 Rs. 7,000/- 6. Case NO. 193/98 Rs. 5,000/- 7. Case NO. 194/98 Rs. 8,000/- 8. Case No. 195/98 Rs. 7,000/- 9. Case No. 196/98 Rs. 8,000/-. The appellant preferred S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No.656/99, to S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No.656/99 National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Ganga Devi & ors. and two connected appeals. 3 challenge award passed in Claim Case No.100/97, S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No.657/99 to challenge award passed in Claim Case No.99/97 and S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No. 658/00 to challenge award passed in Claim Case No.102/97 and did not choose to challenge the other award in which the awarded amount was Rs. 10,000/- or less than 10,000/-. One of the appeals to challenge award in Claim Case No.101/95 being S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 655/99-National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Mukh Ram and ors, was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 7.9.2005 on the ground that the appellant-Insurance Company despite opportunities, did not serve the respondents. It will be worthwhile to mention here that this Court while dismissing S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No.655/99 of the appellant, observed that looking to the quantum of compensation amount involved in this appeal, this Court is satisfied that no useful purpose would be serviced in extending further opportunity to the appellant nor extending of any further opportunity appears to be expedient in the facts and circumstances of this case.” The learned counsel for the respondents has raised objection that since the appellant itself has accepted the finding of the S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No.656/99 National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Ganga Devi & ors. and two connected appeals. 4 tribunal given in the same judgment while deciding other claim cases and the amounts awarded in those cases have been paid by the appellant to the claimants, therefore, the appellant now cannot raise any ground to challenge the award passed in favour of these claimants. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellant in their best wisdom decided to not to challenge the award merely on the ground that the amount involved was too meager and it would not have been just and proper for the appellant to challenge the award by incurring of expenditure. It is also submitted that the appellant did not waived their right to challenge the award as they have preferred the appeals in which the award amount is more and unreasonable as well as in view of the final judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court settling the legal position, the appellant's case is covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and, therefore, virtually it is objection of the respondent amounting to estopple against the law be applied against the appellant. I considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No.656/99 National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Ganga Devi & ors. and two connected appeals. 5 parties. The party has his own right to decide to challenge the finding given by the court or by the tribunal and for that purpose, the party is entitled to look into all the facts relevant for the purpose of filing the appeal. In a matter where there exists reason for not preferring appeal in that situation after thoughtful consideration by the party and particularly the party like Insurance Company, the Government and the public bodies, they can certainly keep the legal issue alive even when they did not choose to prefer appeal on the ground that that appeal itself will be unnecessary burden upon such organization or such aggrieved party. The challenge to any award just for getting the issue decided from the court of law, in very many circumstances, may not be appropriate and in the interest of the party who can prefer appeal to challenge the order of the court or the tribunal. A person if looses more money or gains nothing even after winning the case by getting decision on law point, then in that situation that party may not file appeal or challenge the finding on the question of law or even in some cases, on question of fact, to avoid unnecessary burden upon public S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No.656/99 National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Ganga Devi & ors. and two connected appeals. 6 institution and also upon the Government and that too in the cases they cannot get any relief for themselves in that particular case. It is also not unknown that in some of the legislature by law, it has been provided that below certain amount, the appeal shall not be preferred by the department. Even restriction is imposed by the Code of Civil Procedure against the maintainability of the second appeal on the basis of pecuniary limits under Section 102, CPC. In this case, the point involved is virtually pure question of law as the appellant's contention is that the appellant-Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimant because of the reason that the victims were travelling in the goods vehicle and Hon'ble the Apex Court held that the persons travelling in goods vehicle are not covered by the insurance policy and the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. It will be worthwhile to mention here that this Court in S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No.655/99, in which the same award was impugned, took note of the fact that “looking to the quantum of the compensation amount involved in this case, this Court is satisfied that no useful purpose would be served in extending S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No.656/99 National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Ganga Devi & ors. and two connected appeals. 7 further opportunity to appellant ....” and this also indicates that the quantum of compensation involved in the appeal also is a relevant fact for the purpose of entertaining the appeal. In view of the above reason, the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent is rejected and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the appeals are allowed. If the amount of the award has been paid to the claimants by the appellant Insurance Company, the appellant-Insurance Company will be free to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle. The stay petitions have become infructuous, hence dismmised, in view of the fact that all the appeals have been allowed and the appellant- Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability. (PAKASH TATIA),J. mlt