LexNATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHANDIGARH versus NICOLLETTA ROHTAGI AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHANDIGARH
v.
NICOLLETTA ROHTAGI AND ORS.
SEPTEMBER 17, 2002
B
{V.N. KHARE, SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND ASHOK BHAN, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988- Sections 149(/),(2),(7), 170 and 173~ Motor
Accident-Third party compensation-Appeal uls 173 by insurer questioning
C quantum of compensation and finding regarding negligence of offending
vehicle, in absence of appeal by insured-Whether permissible-Held, no--
Appeal by insurer can be filed only on ground$ provided uls l 49(2)-
However, where there is collusion between claimant and the insured, or the
insured does not contest the claim, or the Tribunal does not implead the
insurer to contest in such cases, the insurer on seeking permission of the
D Tribunal can contest the claim on the grounds available to the insured-
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939-Section96(1),(2) and (6).
The question for consideration in these matters was whether it is open
to the insurer to prefer an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 against an award by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal questioning
E the quantum of compensation, as well as the finding as regards the negligence
\
of the offending vehicle, where an insurer has not preferred an appeal.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: I.I Even if no appeal is preferred under section 173 of Motor
F Vehicles Act, 1988 by an insured against the award ofa Tribunal, it is not
permissible for an insurer to file an appeal questioning the quantum of
compensation as well as findings as regards negligence or contributory
negligence of the offending vehicle. (473-G, H]
1.2. The right of appeal is not an inherent right or common law right,
G but it is a statutory right. If the law provides that an appeal can be filed on
limited grounds, t~e grounds of challenge cannot be enlarged on the premise
that the insured or the persons against whom a claim has been made has not
filed any appeal. Section 149 (2) of 1988 Act limits the insurer's appeal on
those enumerated grounds and the appeal being a product of the statute, it is
H not open to an insurer to take any other plea other than those provided in
456
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., CHANDIGARH'" NICOLLETI A ROHTAG!
457
section 149(2) of 1988 Act. (471-F, G(
A
1.3. Parliament, while enacting sub-section (2) of Section 149 only
specified some of the defences which are based on conditions of the policy
and, therefore, any other breach of conditions of the policy by the insurer
which does not find place in sub-section (2) of Section 149 cannot be taken as
a defence by the insurer. If the Parliament had intended to include the breach B
of other conditions of the policy as a defence, it could have easily provided any
breach of conditions of insurance policy in sub-section (2) of Section 149 of
1988 Act. (468-8, CJ
1.4. Motor vehicle accident claim is a tortuous claim directed against C
tortfeasors who are the insured and the driver of the vehicle and the insurer
comes to the scene as a result of statutory liability created under the Motor
Vehicles Act. The legislature has ensured by enacting Section 149of1988
Act that the victims of motor vehicle are fully compensated and protected. It
is for that reason the insurer cannot escape from its liability to pay
compensation on any exclusionary cla·1se !!! the insurance policy except those D
specified in Section 149(2) of the Act or where the condition precedent
specified in Section 170 is satisfied. (470-G, H; 471-A]
1.5. Where conditions precedent embodied in Section 170 are satisfied
and award is adverse to the interest of the insurer; the insurer has a right to
file an appeal challenging the quantum of compensation or negligence or E
contributory negligence of the offending vehicle even if the insured has not
filed any appeal against the quantum of compensation. Sections 149, 170 and
173 are part of one scheme and if any different interpretation to Section 173
of the 1988 Act is given, the same would go contrary to the scheme and object
of the Act. (471-D, El
1.6. 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 Tribunal
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
F
on the ground available to the insured or to a person against whom a claim G
has been made. If permissExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.