UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus JYOTSNABEN SUDHIRBHAI PATEL AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 380 · Decided: 11-08-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. 
v. 
JYOTSNABEN SUDHIRBHAI PATEL AND ORS. 
AUGUST I I, 2003 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND P. VENKATARAMA REDD!, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Sections 149(2), 170 and 173-Motor 
Accident-Compensation-Claim-Driver and owner of vehide did not contest 
C the claim-Adverse inference drawn against them and compensation awarded-
1nsurance Company impleaded as party by Tribunal but reasons for 
impleadment not recorded-Appeal of insurance Company against award-
Dismissed by High Court as not maintainable-On appeal, Held: Insurance 
Company can contest the proceeding on the grounds other than enumerated 
in Section 149(2) if there is collusion between claimant and the insured-The 
D Insurance company can be legitimately considered to be 'person aggrieved'. 
E 
Words and Phrases: 
'Person aggrieved'-Meaning of- In the context of Motor VehiclesAct; 
1988. 
Respondents-legal heirs of a person who had died in a motor 
accident, filed claim petition un.der Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The driver 
and the owner of the vehicle did not file written statement nor did they 
depose as witnesses, hence the Tribunal drew adverse inference against 
them and awarded compensation. Appellant-Insurance Company had filed 
F petition before the Tribunal to be impleaded as party and the same was 
granted by the Tribunal, but the reasons for impleading it were not 
recorded. 
Insurance Company preferred appeal before High Court impleading 
the legal heirs of the deceased and also driver and owner of the venicle, 
G as respondents. High Court dismissed the appeal holding that in view of 
Section 149(2) of the Act, the appeaf under Section 170 was not 
maintainable. Hence the present appeal. -
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
H 
380 
... 
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. J.S. PATEL 
381 
HELD: 1. Insurance Company can contest the claim preferred before A 
the Tribunal only on the statutory ground!' prescribed under Section 149(2) 
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 but, if there is collusion between the person 
making the claim and the person resisting the claim or if the person against 
whom the claim is macle has failed to contest the claim, the insurance 
Company can step in and seek permission of the Tribunal and make a B 
prayer for getting itself impleaded as a party to the proceeding and the 
insurer so impleaded can then contest the proceeding on grounds other 
than the grounds enumerated in sub-section (2) Section 149 of the Act. 
This is an enabling provision in the event of a collusion between the 
claimant and the insured or the tortfeaser. (387-A-B) 
2. High Court should not have dismissed the appeal on the sole 
ground that the appellant had not obtained reasoned order permitting it 
to contest under Section 170 of the Act. In the instant case, the Insurance 
Company was impleaded as third respondent. The driver and owner of 
c 
the vehicle, though appeared before the Tribunal, did not contest the 
proceedings. They did not file the written statement nor did they choose D 
to given evidence before the Tribunal. Appellant filed an application under 
Section 170 of the Act seeking permission of the Tribunal to contest the 
proceedings giving the necessary details. However, the Tribunal, while 
passing its orders on the petition filed under Section 170 of the Act only 
stated that the prayer was granted, though the mandate of Section 170(b) E 
of the Motor Vehicles Act states that the Tribunal while passing an order 
shall record its reasons. It is very much evident that the driver and the 
owner of the motor vehicle did not file the written statement and failed to 
contest the proceedings. The Tribunal could have merely recorded that 
fact while allowing the application. In a situation contemplated by clause 
(b) of Section 170, nothing more was required than recording that F 
indisputable fact. For failure to do so, the appellant shall not suffer 
prejudice. Therefore, the appellant-Insurance Company was justified in 
contesting the proceedings on the grounds other than those enumerated 
under sub-Section (2) of Section 149 of the Act, pursuant to the permission 
granted by the Court. For the same reason, the Insurance Company can G 
be legitimately considered to be 'person aggrieved' within the meaning of 
Section 173 of the Act. (387-C-H) 
National Insurance Co. Ltd Chandigarh v. Nicolletta Rohtagi and Ors., 
[2002) 7 sec 456, relied on. 
H 
382 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Shankarayya 

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