- (1.) SPECIAL leave granted.
(2.) WE have heard the counsel for the parties. In this appeal by special leave the appellants are the parents of the deceased, who died in an accident which took place on 4.9.1998. A claim petition was filed under Section 166(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Claims Tribunal in which a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- was claimed by way of compensation. The Tribunal by its order of 30.3.2001 held that accident occurred due to negligence of driver of the vehicle owned by respondent No. 1 and, therefore, respondent No. 2, namely, the insurance company was liable to pay the compensation. On the basis that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 2,500/- after deducting 1/3rd of the annual income towards expenses of the deceased and applying the multiple of 17, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 3,40,000/- by way of compensation and a sum of Rs. 12,000/- towards funeral expenses, etc. The Claims Tribunal also awarded interest at the rate of 9 per cent. An appeal was preferred before the High Court by the owner as well as the insurer, namely, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. The said appeal was entertained by the High Court and was ultimately partly allowed by its judgment and order of 19.2.2003. The High Court reduced the compensation awarded to the appellants considering the fact that the multiplier applied by the Tribunal was not justified. Instead of 17 it applied the multiple of 11. For reduction the multiplier, the High Court considered the age of the mother which was found to be 53.
(3.) IN this appeal preferred by claimants-appellants, it is submitted that the appeal preferred by the insurance company before the High Court was not maintainable and for this reliance is placed on the provisions of section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In a decision of this court in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Nicolletta Rohtagi, (2002-3)132 P.L.R. 621 (S.C.) : 2002(4) RCR(Civil) 464, this court held : "(24) We have earlier noticed that motor vehicle accident claim is a tortuous claim directed against tort-feasors who are the insured and the driver of the vehicle and the insurer comes to the scene as a result of statutory liability created under the Motor Vehicles Act. The legislature has ensured by enacting section 149 of that Act that the victims of motor vehicle accidents are fully compensated and protected. It is for that reason the insurer cannot escape from its liability to pay compensation on any exclusionary clause in the insurance policy except those specified in section 149(2) of the Act or where the condition precedent specified in Section 170 is satisfied. (25) For the aforesaid reasons, an insurer if aggrieved against an award, may file an appeal only on those grounds and no other. However, by virtue of Section 170 of the 1988 Act, where in course of an inquiry the Claims Tribunal is satisfied that (a) there is a collusion between the person making a claim and the person against whom the claim has been made, or (b) the person against whom the claim has been made has failed to contest the claim, the Tribunal may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, implead the insurer and in that case it is permissible for the insurer to contest the claim also on the grounds which are available to the insured or to the person against whom the claim has been made. Thus, unless an order is passed by the Tribunal permitting the insurer to avail the grounds available to an insured or any other person against whom a claim has been made on being satisfied of the two conditions specified in Section 170 of the Act, it is not permissible to the insurer to contest the claim on the grounds which are available to the insured or to a person against whom a claim has been made. Thus where conditions precedent embodied in Section 170 are satisfied and award is adverse to the interest of the insurer, the insurer has a right to file an appeal challenging the quantum of compensation or negligence or contributory negligence of the offending vehicle even if the insured has not filed any appeal against the quantum of compensation. Sections 149, 170 and 173 are part of one scheme and if we give any different interpretation to Section 170 of the 1988 Act, the same would go contrary to the scheme and object of the Act." ;