NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO Vs. MACT KISHANGARHBAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INITIALLY claimant impleaded petitioner insurance company as respondent in the claim petition but from subsequently on the oral request of claimant's counsel the name of the petitioner company was deleted. An award thereafter came to be passed against the vehicle owner and the driver. The claimant sought execution of the award by filing execution petition. In the execution proceedings the vehicle owner made an application under Section 149 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (for short the M. V. Act) to declare the petitioner insurance company as judgment debtor. Learned tribunal allowed the application vide order dated March 8, 2000 declaring the petitioner Company liable as judgment debtor. Against this order of the tribunal that the petitioner company has filed the instant writ petition.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner company canvassed that the insurer cannot be saddled with the liability of claim granted by the Tribunal, where the insurer was not impleaded as a party. It was further contended that the claims Tribunal had no jurisdiction to modify the award after it was pronounced. Reliance was placed on Gurdial Chand Bhasin vs. Anil Kumar (1) and New India Assurance Co. vs. Jamuna Devi

(3.) IN Sheodev Prasad Tiwari vs. District Judge (supra) the Allahabad High Court had occasion to examine section 96 (2) of Motor Vehicles Act 1939 which is pari materia to section 149 (2) and it was held that- " The purpose behind sub-section (2), clearly is that the insurer should have an opportunity to contest the enforcement of the judgment on the defences enumerated in that sub-section. Once this opportunity is available, it is of no consequence that the same is accorded subsequent to the judgment or prior to the delivery thereof. IN case these defences prevail in a particular case the effect of the judgment as against the insurer may be nullified even at the stage. The insurer therefore, cannot claim to be prejudicial merely on the ground that notice issued was subsequent to the judgment and not prior to the same.