Jayant Nath, J. - (1.) THE present appeal is filed by the appellant Insurance Company seeking to impugn the order dated 28.04.2014. By the said impugned order the appellant Insurance Company has been directed to deposit the award amount within two weeks.
(2.) THE brief facts as stated in the appeal are that the claim petition was filed without impleading the appellant Insurance Company and only impleaded the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle. It is the contention of the appellant that as per the Award dated 16.01.2010 the award for Rs.4,55,344/ - was to be discharged by the insured respondent No.7 M/s/ Buds Co., the owner of the offending vehicle. Reliance is placed on para 15 of the Award which states that the liability shall be discharged by respondent No.7 as respondent No.7 did not come forward to assist in the enquiry on the face of the plea of the insurer that the Insurance Policy cannot be produced or admitted in the absence of the validity of the insurance period having not been furnished by the insured. Hence, respondent No.7 was directed to deposit the award amount. It is urged that vide impugned order dated 28.04.2014 in the execution petition the Tribunal has directed the appellant Insurance Co. to now deposit the award amount in modification of the directions of the Tribunal as given in the Award dated 16.01.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Shila Datta & Ors., : IV (2011) ACC 287 and the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. S.Rama Krishna Reddy & Ors., : III (2005) ACC 524 and submits that the defences as available under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are still available to the appellant even before the executing court as no adjudication on this was done by the Tribunal while passing its award dated 16.01.2010. The executing court would hence have gone into these issues.
(3.) THE Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Shila Datta & Ors. (supra) in para 11 held as follows: - "11. ... The claim petition is maintainable against the owner and driver without impleading the insurer as a party. When a statutory notice is issued under Section 149(2) by the Tribunal, it is clear that such notice is issued not to implead the insurer as a party -respondent but merely to put it on notice that a claim has been made in regard to a policy issued by it and that it will have to bear the liability as and when an award is made in regard to such claim. Therefore, it cannot, as of right, require that it should be impleaded as a party -respondent. But it can however be made a party -respondent either by the claimants voluntarily in the claim petition or by the direction of the Tribunal under Section 170 of the Act. Whatever be the reason of ground for the insurer being impleaded as a party, once it is a party -respondent, it can raise all contentions that are available to resist the claim.";