w& SSGSKSSXKM IN THE HIGH COURT OF 0-IHATTBGARH AT BILASPUR .<A o' f3.V ^ 1wS.se. Appeal No. JiA3_/2003 .WPELLANT : / E^endant No»3 BNsi3n t National Insui-ance Ccanpan}' Lt.d., through Branch Manager, Priyadairi Nagaf, Taha Cbnylex. Bilasput- (CG). lntl i^f^; RKPONDEMT -Versus - :' 1. &T»t.Parvati Bai. RESPONDENT Etefendant No.l k R@PONDENT Etefendant No.2 Wd/o Late Kamdm Gadana, R/o Mahayeer Ward, Bhatdpara, Raipttr(CQ) Rqkiimar Maaih, 35 yeai's, S/'o BhagivaH Isai, R/o WUage- Mudideeh, PoUce&ation- Hirri, Bilaspur (CG). -Driver- 3. RajeshJaM't,2Syears, t ^•^ ? S/'oSi^amLihan'dTaTain, f i R/o T.'iahflveefWard, nift-ord: of FushpaiqaU Prmtere, Bhatapara, Baipur(CG.). -{jwrKF- _w\ \/^' .^ 17S OF ACT, 19Si ^•' ~" Appeal valued at Ps. 2,01,500/-. t Being aggtieved by the awdfd-dflted 21.10>20(B passed by the Secotid f^/" _^ S W Additional Motor AcciderA Qaims Tribunal, Baloda Bazar, RaipurinQaixnCase .<) ® <l~A; ~S ^ No. 50'/'2001 the appellant prefere tlus appeal on tfie fotlowu-tg facts and FACTS ::ss^g^^3£lsi.^'-'. ••^^S^SSs;£a,is.t^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^2^:'^''-'^v^^-ij HIGH COUm-OFCHHATTISGARHATBU-ASPUR isc.ADDeai No. 1167 DefendantNo.3. Nationai Insurance Ud. ; RESPONDENTS Smt. Parvati Bai and others. APPEALUNDERSEGTIOMlTSQFTHEMOTORVEHfCLES ACT,1988 :1,: ::: .' : :'^ -': .. 1 SB: Hon'bteShri .Justice N. K. Agarwal. Present : Shri B.N. Nande, counsel fbrthe appeltant. Nonefortherespondehts. ^ ORALORDER (PasSedonl6thdayofNQvember,26lO) 1. This is insurer's:ap@eal filed against the ^award dated 21-10-2003 passed by Second Additional Motor Aeeident Ctaims Tribunal, 'Baloda Bazar, Dfetricf RaipuF, C.G. <for short 'the Trihunat') in Giaim Case N0,50/2001 whereby and whereunder an amount of Rs.2,01,50Cy-has:been awarded.as compensation'to the ciaitnants hplding. the appellanflnsurance Company 1iaf3left>ritepayment. . • 2. . ^ief facte of the.case are that on 08-05-1S97, Harpal Kant (since deceased) was,,dasheci by| ttie driyer by rash and negttgent drivmg of the offSrKiing ^eRiele bearing Tegisti-atFon 'No. ;!VI;B.S;i;T522,1 result bfwhich hesuecumfeed tQttl6 iniun^^ustainect, byhimmthesaidascident;',' ;:asl:a :'%\ '': -wassw^ *.s. ^^ m 3. The claimant unfortunate mother of the deceased has filed a petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vahicles Act (for short 'the Act') eiaiming compensation of Rs.4,14,000/- for the death of- the deceased. 4. The appellant/lnsurance Company SooKa plea in the written statement that the driver of the or'fending vehicle (Truck) was not havirQ valj,d and effective driving licence at-the time ofaccident and, therefore, the appellant/lnsurance Company is nSt liable for payment,ofcQmpensation. 5. The appellant/lnsurance Company examined the R.T.O., as weil as the R.T.O., Jhansi. However, undisputedly, the appellant/insurance Company failed to exarnine any officer of the Company and also failed to produce the copy ofpolicy of insurance. 6. Learned Tribunal on close scrutiny of evidence ted, material placedand submissions made bythe parttes, held the appetlanb'lnsurance Company ilable for payment of compensation on the ground thaf the licence was validfy reneweci by the RiT.O., Bilaspur artd, therefore, the appellant/lnsurance Company csjnnot eseape from its liabiHty. Further the learned SibunalJhas assessed the incbme ofthedeceased as Rs.18,000/- per annum, applied the multiplier iof 16 looking to the age" of the deGeased at the time of v ^SBShi "-^ssa"1;^? ^•..^^ %».. ''6B'cy, 'a»&^^ accident as 35 yearsand assessed the compensation on account of loss of dependency as Rs.1,92,000/-. The teamed Tribunal has further awarded Rs.5,000/- towards loss of love and affection,—Rs.2000/-for funeral expenses and Rs.2,500/- for ioss of estate. Thus, the total amount of compensation at Rs.2,01,500/- along with interest @ 9% per annum. 7. Leamed counsel appearing forthe appetlanyinsurance Company would submit that the finding recorded by v \ the learned Tribunai is perverse in as much as the original licence was issued by R.T.O., Jhansi which was found fake and once the licence is found fake, its renewal would have no meaning. He wouid further contend that the amount ofcompensation awarded by the iearned is shockingty on higher side. 8. I have perused the award jmpugned and record of the Tribunal. 9. Undisputedly, the appellanVlnsurance Company did not file ths copy ofthe poltey along with its condition to prove its defence tHat the owner of the vehicle has breached the conditions of the policy. In view of the -»•'. ;'.. • • . '•;•..•'•' • ; . . •" • . above, although tbe finding recorded by the Tribunal is r not correct in as mucih as on&e the licehce is tound fa^g, it will not tecome valid by its renewal .but as observed herein above, the appeflant/lnsurance './'••• • :'••• • '•.•'':''''•' Company did not examine any offfcer nor had filed the (,t ^'^*L-'-':" '<k ^^^i^^^^^^^j^^^'P^B^^s,,""- .•.-•;,^''S-U!T±s--':s!Si.sa::'.'<;:.3.. ^o policy of Insurance to show that the owner of the vehlcle has breached the conditions of the policy and thus utterly failed to discharge its burden and in the above circumstances of the case, 1 do not find any substance in theabove ground, the same is rejecfed. So far as the challenge to the quantum of compensation is concerned, the same is also sans substanee. Admittedly, the appgllant slid not obtain any permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehictes Act, and without such permission appeal^'preferred by the Insurance Company chailenging quantum of compensation is not maintainable. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the matter of Nationai Inswance Co. Ltd., Chandigarh v. NicolSetta Rohtagl and Others; reported in (2902) 7 SCC 456 has observed as under: "We have already held that untess the conditions precedent specified in Section 170 of 1988 Act are satisfied, an insurance company has no right of appeal to chalienge theawardon merits. However, . in a situation where there is a collusion between the claimants and the insured or the insured does not contest the claim and, further, the Triburial does not implead the insurance company to contest the claim, in , such cases it is open to an insurer to seek permission of the tribunal to contest the claim onthe-ground avaijable to the |insured or to a personagalnst whom a claim has been made. If permission is granted and the insurer is attowed to-contest thte claim on fflerits, in that case it is open| to thei - insurer to file an appeal against an award on merits, if aggrieved. In any case where an application for permission is erroneously rejected the in$urer ean challenge only that part of the order while ffling appeal on I"' " !~^ l' i-aa.. 1 ^jp-»! ^'atBCTstf3 '[--" ^l grounds specified in sub-section (2) of Section 149 of 1988 Act. But such application for permission has to be bona fide and filedat the stage when the insured is required to lead his evidence. So far as obtaining compensation by fraud by the claimant is concerned, it is no longer res mfegrs that fraud vitiates the entire proceeding and ih suchcases it is opento an insurer to apply to the Tribunal for rectificationof award." 11 In view of above, the appeal filed bythe appellant being •^ ' '•• devoid of substanee is tiabie to tie and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- N.K.Agrawal Judge Kw