SAMUNDRA DEVI AND ORS. versus NARENDRA KAUR AND ORS.

Citation: [2008] 11 S.C.R. 714 · Decided: 01-08-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Case Allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 11 S.C.R. 714 
-+ 
A 
., 
SAMUNDRA DEVI AND-ORS. 
v. 
NARENDRA KAUR AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 4748 of 2008) 
B 
AUGUST 1, 2008 
[S.8. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
,.. 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - ss. 149, 166 and 170: 
··Accident between two vehicles - Causing death of a per-
c son - Compensation claim - Driver of offending vehicle did 
not possess a valid driving license - Ori that ground, Tribunal 
held that there was breach of insurance policy in respect of 
the offending vehicle, and consequently, the insurer was not 
liable to reimburse the owner of, the offending vehicle, the 
0 
amount payable by him by way of compensation - Claimants 
filed appEJ,al contending that the insurer also ought to be made 
~-
liable to pay compensation - High Court held the insurer jointly 
and se_v~rally liable and gave it liberty to recover the amount 
of cpinpensation from owner of the vehicle, but considering 
E the contention raised before it by the insurer that in the event 
it was held liable to reimburse the owner of the vehicle, it was 
entitled to contest the quantum of compensation as being 
excessive, reduced the quantum of compensation - lnterfer-
ence of High Court with regard to quantum of compensation -
F 
Challenge to - Held.· Ordinarily and subject to just exceptions, 
the insurer would have no right to question the quantum of 
compensation in absence of any leave having been granted 
)'-
in its favour in terms of s. 170 - In the instant case, no leave 
was obtained in terms of s.170- Or.41, r.33, CPC has limited 
application and was not applicable - High Court could not have 
G considered contention raised by insurer which was not avail-
able to it in law - It erred in issuing the impugned directions, 
despite noticing that no appeal was filed by owner or driver of 
+" 
the offending vehicle as also the insurer thereof - Code of 
Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or.41, r.33. 
H 
714 
SAMUNDRA DEVI & ORS. v. NARENDRA 
715 
KAUR & ORS. 
~ 
Truck owned by Respondent No.1 and at the relevant A 
time driven by Respondent No.2 met with accident with a 
--" 
car. The truck was insured with Respondent No.3. The 
j 
person seated in the car died as a result of the injuries . 
sustained in the said accident. The car was also damaged. 
Appellants filed compensation claim under s.166 of B 
.... 
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Accident Claims Tribu-
--\ 
nal inter alia held that Respondent No.2 did not possess a 
valid and effective driving licence and, therefore, breach 
of policy of the contract of insurance was established, 
and consequently, Respondent No.3 was not liable to re- c 
imburse Respondent No.1 any such amount payable by 
him by way of compensation. The Tribunal awarded com-
pensation of Rs.13,32,000/-. 
Against the award, Appellants filed appeal in terms 
D 
of s.173 of the Act inter a/ia contending that the insurer-
~ 
Respondent No.3 ought to have been made liable to pay 
compensation along with the owner-Respondent No.1 
and driver-Respondent No.2. No appeal however was filed 
by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as also Respondent No.3. 
E 
The High Court held Respondent No.3 jointly and sev-
erally liable and gave it liberty to recover the amount of 
compensation from Respondent No.1, but considering the 
contention raised before it by Respondent No.3 that in 
the event it was held liable to reimburse Respondent No.1, 
F 
...j 
it was entitled to contest the quantum of compensation 
as being excessive, reduced the quantum of compensa-
tion from Rs.13,32,000/- to Rs.6,96,000/-. 
The question which arose for consideration in the 
present appeal is as to whether it was permissible for the G 
High Court to interfere with the quantum of compensa-
t 
tion as awarded by the Tribunal, although no appeal was 
preferred either by the owner or the driver of the truck 
nor any appeal was preferred by the insurer. 
H 
716 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 11 S.C.R. 
~ 
A 
Allowing the appeai, the Court 
HELD:-1 Jn relation to a third party, the grounds upon 
which the insurer can deny its !i~bility .are contained in 
sub-section (2) of s.149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 
B 
Ordinarily and subject to just exceptions, the insurance 
,,,_
company .would have no rigtit to question· the quantum 
of compensation in absence of any leave having been 
,.. 
granted in i'ts favour in terms of s.170 of the· Act. The High 
~ ,. 
Court failed to consider this aspect of the matter~ Appel-
r 
1--
lants prefe-rred appeals before it on limit

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