1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR The New India Assurance Company Ltd. V/s. Smt. Parvati Devi & Ors. (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.3547/2009) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Date of Order :: October 7, 2010 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr.Vinod Tyagi, for the appellant. Mr.Vinay Mathur ] Mr.Ajay Shukla ] for the respondents. Aggrieved by the award dated 30th May, 2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shahpura (Jaipur), the appellant, the New India Assurance Company Ltd. has approached this Court. The brief facts of the case are that on 26.09.2008 at about 2:00 PM when Ram Karan was going on foot towards his house, a tractor, bearing No.RJ-02-1R-8301, hit him. Resultantly, Ram Karan sustained injuries. During his treatment, Ram Karan expired. The claimants filed a claim petition under Section 140/166 of the M.V. Act, 1988. The Insurance Company had denied the averments made in the claim petition. The learned Tribunal had framed issues. The 2 learned Tribunal after hearing the parties, vide its award dated 30.05.2009, directed the Insurance Company to pay a compensation of Rs.16,92,000/-. Being aggrieved with the award dated 30.05.2009, the appellant prefers this appeal. Mr. Vinay Mathur, the learned counsel for the respondent, has raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the appeal. According to the learned counsel, the Insurance Company had filed an application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. However, the said application was dismissed. Therefore, the present appeal is not maintainable. In order to buttress this contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the case of Shankarayya & Anr. V/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. [(1998) 3 SCC 140], National Insurance Co. Ltd., Chandigarh V/s. Nicolletta Rohtagi & ors. [(2002) 7 SCC 456], Samundra Devi & ors. V/s. Narendra Kaur & ors. [AIR 2008 SC 3205], United India Insurance Company Ltd. V/s. Smt. Kadi & Ors. [RLW 2009 (2) Raj. 1801]. On the other hand, Mr. Vinod Tyagi, the learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously contended that in fact the application under Section 170 of the Act filed by the Insurance Company was never decided by the learned Tribunal. Although the application was filed, no order was passed by the 3 learned Tribunal expressly rejecting the application. Therefore, the Insurance Company is certainly entitled to file this appeal before this Court. In rejoinder, Mr. Vinay Mathur has contended that it was the duty of the counsel of the Insurance Company to bring it to the notice of the learned Tribunal that its application under Section 170 of the Act was still pending. In case, the counsel was negligent, the Insurance Company cannot take the benefit of its own wrong. In order to buttress this contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Dr. Jayanthi & Anr. [2001 ACJ 69] and National Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Mahavir Prasad Malpani & Ors. [2006 (1) WLC 449]. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case laws cited at the Bar. According to the record of the case, which has been produced before this Court, it is true that an application under Section 170 of the Act was filed by the Insurance Company. However, after the application was filed, no effort was made by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company to press the same. In fact, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company never brought it to the notice of the learned Tribunal that its 4 application is pending and the same needs to be decided. Once the company is negligent in its conduct, it cannot circumvent the requirement of law. Moreover, the right to file an appeal is statutory right, if certain procedure needs to be followed. It must be adhered before an appeal can be filed. Their Lordships of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Dr. Jayanthi & Anr. (supra) observed that “equity does not help those who are negligent, whose conduct is not above board. It is too late in the day now to allow these applications because, allowing the applications will be tantamount to remanding the matter for decision afresh, allowing all these pleas and then return. A person who sleeps over his remedy cannot be allowed to riase that plea at a later stage”. In the case of Mahavir Prasad Malpani & ors. (supra), a Division Bench of this Court has expressed the similar view. Although the application under Section 170 of the Act was filed, neither it was brought to the notice of the Tribunal, nor pressed for decision. Therefore, clearly, the appeal is not maintainable. Hence, this appeal is, hereby, dismissed as not maintainable. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. A.Asopa/-