LexUNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus BHUSHAN SACHDEVA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. BHUSHAN SACHDEV A AND ORS. JANUARY 18, 2002 B [K.T. THOMA:.> AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Section 173(1)-Right lo appeal under- Right of insurance company-No appeal preferred by the insured-Held, the C insurance company has right to file the appeal as it falls within the ambit of expression "any person aggrieved by an award of a claims Tribunal". Words & Phrases - "any person aggrieved by an award of a Claims Tribunal"-Meaning D of in the context of Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In a motor accident claim, Claims Tribunal absolved, the insured from payment of the compensation and directed the appellants-Insurance Company to pay the whole compensation amount. The insured did not file any appeal against the award. The appellant-Insurance Company filed E Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, on assumption that it could not file appeal against the award under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. High Court issued notice on the question of maintainability of the petition. Hence this appeal. F G Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD : I. It is open to the lnsun:nce Company to invoke the right under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as the insured had failed to appeal against the award passed against him. That being the position, the revision petition filed by the appellant before the High Court should be treated as an appeal petition under Section 173 of the Act. (357-H( 2. If it is held that no Insurance Company should feel aggrieved even It.~ if the award is seemingly unjust and that such awarded amount should go out of the public fund it is public interest which suffers. If the Insurance Company has reason to believe that the award was obtained fraudulently H which fact was not known to the insured, the Insurance Company must 352 ' * UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. BHUSHAN SACHDEVA [THOMAS, J ] 353 feel aggrieved. Any interpretation denying such aggrieved insurance A j companies the opportunity to seek the legal remedy of appeal should not be adopted unless there is a statutory compulsion. There is nothing in section 173 or in the other relevant provisions of the Act which debars the Insurance Company to resort to the remedy of appeal when it knows that the award is unjust. (356-B-C] 3. The Insurance Company can fall within the ambit of the words "any person aggrieved by an award of a claims Tribunal" as used in Section 173(1) of the Act, when the insured failed to file an appeal against the award. (356-DI B 4. Right to contest would include the right to contest by filing an C appeal against the award of the Tribunal as well. Hence the insured can continue to contest the claim by filing an appeal as provided under Section 173 of the Act. If the insured fails to prefer an appeal that also would amount to failure to contest that claim effectively. (357-C] Narendra Kumar & Anr. v. Yarenissa & Ors., (1998) 9 SCC 202 and D ~ ,,, Chinnama George & Ors. v. N. K. Raju & Ors., (20001 4 SCC 130, distinguished. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No. 543 of 2002. E From the Judgment and Order dated 13.9.2001 of the Delhi High Court in C.M. (M.) No. 564 of 2001. -< P.P. Malhotra, K.L. Nandwani, Kamal Baid and Debasis Misra for the .. Appellant. F The Judgment of the Court was delivered by THOMAS, J. Leave granted. What is the remedy of the insurance company if it is aggrieved of the G "' award passed by a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short the Claims Tribunal). On the assumption that it cannot file an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') the appellant-Insurance Company has chosen to file a revision petition before the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. A motion was made for stay of execution of the award during the pendency of the revision petition, but the Hi.gh Court H 354 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] I S.C.R. A has only chosen to issue notice to the opposite parties to show cause why the revision petition cannot be entertained. A claim was made before the Claims Tribunal, Patiala House, New Delhi, by the legal heirs of one Dr. Tulsi Dass Sachdeva for awarding compensation in respect of a motor accident which took place on 27.8. I 994. B Dr. Tulsi Dass Sachdeva died in the said accident and some of his kith and kin sustained serious injuries therein. The total amount
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.