O.P.BISHNOI, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the New India Assurance Company Limited, who is the insurer of the vehicle involved in an accident.
(2.) ON 12.12.1993, at about 6.15 A.M., a Government Jeep bearing No. RNY 2667 was going from Kherwara towards Udaipur and there was a head on collision with truck No. HR -02A/0843. The driver of the jeep Rameshwar Lal died on account of the injuries received during the accident. The respondents No. 1 to 6 preferred a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Accident Claims Act and prayer was made to award Rs. 15,01,000/ - as damages. The respondent No. 1 is the widow of the deceased and the respondents No. 2 and 3 are the parents of the deceased. The other three respondents are the minor daughters of the deceased. The respondent No. 7 Praveen Baxi was the owner of the said truck, which was involved in the accident. It is not in dispute that the said truck was insured by the appellant. The claim petition was not seriously contested by the owner or the driver of the truck. The appellant, in its reply, contended that the accident was caused by the deceased Rameshwar Lal who took the jeep wrong side and consequently collided with the truck. Necessary issues were framed and the learned Tribunal found that it was the driver of the truck, who was solely responsible for causing the accident. Thus, the appellant as well as respondent No. 7 were found liable to reimburse the claimanants and an Award totalling Rs. 6,25,000/ - was passed, against which, this appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company.
(3.) DURING the course of arguments, the learned Counsel for the respondents raised legal objection about maintainability of the appeal and contendeds that the appellant being insurer, had no locus -standi to prefer an appeal on the gorund that the amount awarded was excess. So far as this objection is concerned, it is not in dispute that mainly the contention of the appellant is to the effect that the learned Tribunal was rather liberal in awarding the amount to the claimants but I find that in view of a decision of the Apex Court delivered in the matter of United India Insurance Co. Limited v. Bhushan Sachdeva, [(2000) 2 SCC 265], all objections raised by the learned Counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 6 are unacceptable and I find that challenging the award on the ground that the awarded amount was unreasonable and excessive is permissible on the part of the Insurance Company. It would be proper to reproduce the observations of the Apex Court in respect of the point in issue and the relevant portion contained in Paras 10 and 11 of the judgment, reads as under: 10. Can it be said that the Insurance Company should not have any grievance at all even in a case where the award appears to be unjust to that company? We must bear in mind that the nationalised insurance companies in India are holding public money. What they have to deal with is public fund. They are accountable to the public for every pie of it. If it is held that no insurance company should feel aggrieved even if the award is seemingly unjust and that such awarded amount should go out of the public fund, it is public interest which suffers. If the insurance company has reason to believe that the award was obtained fraudulently which fact was not known to the insured, should we allow public money to be given to satisfy such an award? In such cases, the insurance company must feel aggrieved. Any interpretation denying such aggrieved insurance companies the opportunity to seek the legal remedy of appeal should not be adopted unless there is a statutory compulsion. There is nothing in Section 173 or in the other relevant provisions of the Act which debars the insurance company to resort to the remedy of appeal when it knows that the award is unjust. 11. We are, therefore, of the view that the insurance company can fall within the ambit of the words 'any person aggrieved by an award of a Claims Tribunal' as used in Section 173(1) of the Act, when the insured failed to file an appeal against the award. ;