UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus SHILA DATTA & ORS.

Citation: [2011] 14 S.C.R. 763 · Decided: 13-10-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Reference answered

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011) 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 763 
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. 
A 
V. 
SHILA DATTA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 6026-6027 OF 2007) 
OCTOBER 13, 2011 
B. 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN, H.L. DATTU AND K.S. 
RADHAKRISHNAN, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: 
c 
Claim petition under - For compensation in regard to a 
motor accident - Nature of - Held: An award by the tribunal 
cannot be seen as an adversarial adjudication between the 
litigating parties to a dispute but a statutory determination of 
compensation on the occurrence of an accident, after due 
0 
enquiry, in accordance with the statute. 
ss. 149(2) and 170 - Claim petition - Position in cases 
where the claimants implead the insurer as a respondent -
Held: Where the insurer is a party-respondent, either on 
account of being impleaded as a party by the tribunal u/s. 170 
E 
or being impleaded as a party-respondent by the claimants 
in the claim petition voluntarily, It would be entitled to contest 
the matter by raising all grounds, without being restricted to 
the grounds available uls. 149(2) of the Act. 
ss. 173, 168 and 149 - Joint appeal by the owner of the 
vehicle (insured) and insured - Maintainability of - Held: An 
appeal which is maintainable when the owner of the vehicle 
files it, does not become not maintainable merely on account 
F 
of the insurer being a co-appellant with the owner- When the 
G 
insurer becomes a co-appellant, the owner of the vehicle does 
· not cease to be a person aggrieved - So long as the owner 
is an appellant and he is a. 'person aggrieved' in law, the 
question whether he is independently filing the appeal, or 
763 
H 
764 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A whether he is filing it at the instance of the insurer becomes 
irrelevant - When a counsel holds vakalatnama for an insurer 
and the owner of the vehicle in a joint appeal, the court cannot 
say his arguments and submissions are only on behalf of the 
insurer and not on behalf of the owner. 
B 
s. 149(2) - Claim petition - Position in cases where the 
insurer is only a noticee uls. 149(2) and has not been 
impleaded as a party to the claim proceedings - Held: ft is 
accepted that where a notice is issued uls. 149(2), the insurer 
as 'noticee' (as contrasted from a 'party') cannot 'deny' its 
C liability as an insurer on grounds other than those mentioned 
in Section 149(2)(a} and (b) of the Act, but nothing prevents 
it as a person liable to pay the compensation, from assisting 
the Tribunal in arriving at the Just' compensation - Therefore, 
an insurer, without seeking to avoid or exclude its liability 
D under the policy, on grounds other than those mentioned in 
Section 149(2)(a) and (b), can contest the claim, in regard to 
the quantum - All that Section 149(2) said that insurer cannot 
raise all kinds of contentions based on the terms of policy to 
avoid the contract of indemnity - .But it does not require the 
E insurer to concede wrong claims or false claims or not 
challenge erroneous determination of compensation - It is 
only the insurer, who is required to pay the compensation 
amount, is interested in fifing the appeal - It can file an 
appeal by itself or it can file an appeal jointly with the owner 
F - If it is denied that opportunity, there is a likelihood of huge 
compensation being awarded without any correction - Act 
nowhere says that the insurer is not a 'person aggrieved' with 
reference to the amount of compensation awarded which he 
is required to pay - Interests of justice would not be served 
G by allowing obvious errors to remain uncorrected - If the owner 
of the vehicle(insured) fails to file an appeal when an 
erroneous award is made, he fails to contest the same and 
consequently, the insurer should be able to fife an appeal, by 
applying the principle underlying s. 170 - Interests of justice 
H would not be served by allowing obvious errors to remain 
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. SHILA 
765 
DATIA & ORS. 
uncorrected - Matter placed before the Chief Justice for A 
constituting a larger bench to consider the said issues. 
On reference by the two Judge Bench of this Court 
the questions which arose for consideri:ttion before the 
present three Judge Bench were wheth.er the insurer 
8 
could contest a motor accident claim on merits, in 
particular, in regard to the quantum, in addition to the 
grounds mentioned in section 149(2) of the Act for 
avoiding liability under the policy of insurance; and 
whether an insurer could prefer an 

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