United India Insurance vs Sharbati Devi And Others on 7 October, 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

                                     FAO No.4810 of 2009 (O&M)
                                     Date of decision: 7.10.2009


United India Insurance
Company Limited                                   ......Appellant(s)

                                 Versus


Sharbati Devi and others                          ......Respondent(s)

CORAM:- HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG

* * *

Present: Mr. R.K.Bashamboo, Advocate for the appellant.

Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral)

CM No.23383-CII of 2009

For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 1 day in

filing the appeal is condoned.

CM stands disposed of.

FAO No.4810 of 2009

This is insurer’s appeal challenging the impugned award only

on the ground that compensation granted by the Tribunal is on the higher

side.

Admittedly, the appellant-Insurance Company was not granted

permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to contest

the case on merits and take up all those defences which are available to

the owner/driver of the offending vehicle. However, the contention of the

learned counsel for the appellant is that application filed under Section 170

of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed before the Tribunal, however, the same

has not been decided and therefore, the award is liable to be set aside.

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant. However, I find

no merit in the arguments raised.

FAO No.4810 of 2009 (O&M) -2-

Admittedly, the application under Section 170 of the Motor

Vehicles Act , 1988 was filed by the appellant-Company at the initial stage

and the issues were framed thereafter. No such issue was claimed by the

appellant-Insurance Company before the Tribunal. Neither the appellant-

Company had raised the aforesaid objection, as taken before this Court

during the pendency of the claim petition before the Tribunal. Further from

the perusal of the award, it is found that no evidence was led by the

appellant-Company except raising an objection in its pleadings that the

petition has been filed by the claimants in collusion with driver and owner of

the offending vehicle.

In view thereof, I find no merit in this appeal.

Dismissed.

October 7, 2009                            (RAKESH KUMAR GARG)
ps                                                JUDGE