NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. MADHULIKA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question that arises for our consideration in this appeal is, where an insured has not preferred an appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against an award given by the Motor Accidents CLalms Tribunal, is it open to the insurer to prefer an appeal against the award by the Tribunal questioning the quantum of compensation, as well as finding as regards negligence of the offending vehicle in absence of permission under section 170 of the Act granted by the Tribunal?

(2.) This appeal is preferred by insurance company/insurer of the offending vehicle under section 173 of the Act against the award dated 5.5.1999 passed by the Motor Accidents CLalms Tribunal/Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act, Bareilly in the M.A.C.T. No. 340 of 1993 whereby Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 10,80,000 (rupees ten lakh eighty thousand) as the compensation along with 8 per cent interest thereon from the date of filing of cLalm petition before the Tribunal to cLalmants- respondents. No appeal appears to have been filed by the insured-owner of the offending motor vehicle.

(3.) The facts leading to this appeal are that on 13.8.1993 Amod Lal and Sunil Kumar Jain were travelling in Maruti van No. DNJ 194 from Bareilly to Nainital when an accident took place at about 5.15 p.m. due to head-on collision between a Maruti van and minibus No. UP 25-6493. In the accident Amod Lal died. The heirs of the deceased filed a cLalm petition which was numbered as M.A.C.T. No. 340 of 1993 before the Motor Accidents CLalms Tribunal cLalming Rs. 30,00,000 as compensation on the ground that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of minibus No. UP 25-6493. It was cLalmed that Amod Lal was serving in Western Electronics, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi and his salary was Rs. 8,000 per month and Rs. 4,000 was given to him as House Rent Allowance and other perks like car, telephone, bonus, etc., were also provided. Owner of the minibus, respondent No. 5, filed written statement alleging that the vehicle was being driven by a driver, who was having a valid driving licence and the vehicle was insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd. from 7.7.1993 to 6.7.1994 as per cover note No. 704436 and liability, if any, to pay compensation was of the insurance company. National Insurance Co. Ltd. contested the cLalm on the ground that the vehicle was not driven by a driver who was having valid driving licence and details of insurance policy had not been given. The cLalmants are not legal representatives of the deceased and they are not entitled to any compensation. The accident took place due to negligent driving of the vehicle in which the deceased was travelling and the insurance company was not liable to pay any compensation. However, the Motor Accidents CLalms Tribunal by its award dated 5.5.1999 awarded Rs. 10,80,000 as compensation to the cLalmants for the death of deceased Amod Lal. While awarding aforesaid compensation the Tribunal has held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Mahindra minibus No. UP 25-6493 due to which Amod Lal who was travelling in Maruti van had died. Tribunal has further held that on the date of accident the vehicle was insured by National Insurance Co. Ltd. and awarded Rs. 10,80,000 compensation to be paid by the insurance company to the cLalmants.