CHINNAMA GEORGE AND ORS. versus N.K. RAJU AND ANR.

Citation: [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1050 · Decided: 06-04-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.P. WADHWA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
CHINNAMA GEORGE AND ORS. 
v. 
N.K. RAJU AND ANR. 
APRIL 6, 2000 
[D.P. WADHWAAND D.P. MOHAPATRA, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Sections 147, 149(2), 173-Appeal under-
Statutory bar against insurer in a proceeding of claim of compensation-
Defen_ce under section 149(2) not available to the insurer-Joint appeal-
Whether pennissible-Held, Insurer cannot maintain a joint appeal along 
with the owner or the driver, if defence on any ground under Section 149 is 
not available to it. 
Compensation was granted by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribu-
nal. The insurer Company, alongwith the insured, filed joint appeal against 
the same, before the High Court. High Court reduced the amount of 
compensation. Appellants, the claimants of the compensation preferred an 
appeal to this Court. 
•
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1.1. Under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is the 
duty of the insurer to satisfy the award against the person insured in 
. .i 
respect of third party risks. It is not that liability of the insurer in the 
present case is being disp~ted. Insurer can defend the proceedings before 
the Claims Tribunal on certain limited grounds. [1052-H; 1053-A] 
1.2. None of the grounds as given in sub-section (2) of Section 149 
exist for the insurer to defend the claims petition. That being so, no right 
existed in the insurer to file appeal against the award of the Claims Tribu-
nal. The validity of the appeal by the insurer cannot be approved, merely 
by associating the insured. Provision of law cannot be undermined in this 
way. Court has to give effect to the real purpose to the provision of law 
relating to the award of compensation in respect of the accident arising 
out of the use of the motor vehicles and cannot permit the insurer to give 
him right to defend or appeal on grounds not permitted by law by a 
hackdoor method. Any other interpretation will produce unjust results 
and open gates for the insurer to challenge any award. Purposive ap-
1050 
. 
CHJNNAMA GEORGE v. N.K. RAJU 
1051 
~ 
proach has to be adopted, which would not defeat the broad purpose of 
A 
the Act. Court has to give effect to true object of the Act by adopting 
purposive approach. [1054-F-G; 1055-B-C] 
1.3. H none of the conditions as contained Jn sub-section (2) of 
Section 149 exist for the insurer to avoid the policy of the imuranee, he is 
legally bound to satisfy the award. He cannot be a person aggrieved by the 
B 
award. In that case insurer will be barred from filing any appeal against 
the award of the Claims Tribunal. [1055-F] 
1.4. Insurer cannot mAintain a joint appeal along with the owner or 
the driver if defence on any grounds undet Section 149(2) is not available 
to it. In that situation joint appeal will be incompetent. It is not enough if 
the insurer is struck out from the array of the appellants. The appellate 
court must also be satisfied that a defence which is permitted to be taken 
by the insurer under the Act was taken in the pleadings and was pressed 
before the Tribunal. On the appellate Court being so satisfied the appeal 
may be entertained of the correctness or othen~ise of the judgment of the 
Tribunal on the question arising from/relating to such defence taken by 
the insurer. H the appellate Court is no satisfied that any such question 
was raised by the insurer in the pleadings and/or was pressed before the 
Tribunal, the appeal filed by the insurer has to be dismissed as not main-
tainable. The Court should take care to ascertain this position on proper 
consideration so that the statutory bar against the insurer in a proceeding 
for compensation is not rendered irrelevant by the subterfuge of the insur-
ance company joining the insured as a co-appellant in the appeal filed by 
it. This position is clear on a harmonious reading of the statutory provi-
sions in Sections 147, 149 and 173 of the Act. Any other interpretation will 
defeat the provision of sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the Act and throw 
the legal representatives of the deceased or the injured in the accident to 
unnecessary prolonged litigation at the instance of the insurer. (1056-C-Fl 
Narendra Kumar & Anr. v. Yarenissa & Anr., (1998) 9 SCC 202, relied 
on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2474 of 2000. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.1.98 of the Kerala High Court in 
M.F.A. No. 455 of 1991. 
Romy Chacko and Ms. V. Mohana for the Appellants. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
1052 
SUPREME COURT R

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.