P.C. Phukan, J.@mdashThis is an appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 directing against the impugned judgment and order passed on
28.7.99 by learned Presiding Officer, MACT, Aizawl in MACT Case No. 86/97 wherein the Appellant was directed to pay a sum of Rs.
6,57,600/- to the claimant as compensation.
2. I have heard Mr. G. Raju, learned Counsel for the Appellant as well as Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned Counsel for the Respondents.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the Respondent No. 2 is the owner of the Maruti Taxi MZ-01/6891 which met with an accident in between
Selesih and Sihphir on 31.5.97 around 6 PM causing the death of the husband of the Respondent No. 1 who was one of the passengers. The
claimant Respondent No. 1 filed a claim petition before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aizawl claiming Rs. 17,82,000/- (Rupees
Seventeen lakhs Eighty Two thousand) as compensation for the death of her husband. The said claim petition was registered as MACT Case No.
86/97. The present Appellant Insurance Company as Opposite party No. 2 contested the claim by filing a written statement After considering the
evidence on record and hearing the learned Counsel for the parties learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aizawl awarded an
amount of Rs. 6,57,600/- as final compensation to the claimant Respondent No. 1 and the Appellant was directed to pay the amount within a
period of one month, failing which to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation-hence this
appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before this Court.
4. At the outset Mr. Malhotra, learned Counsel for the Respondents has raised a technical objection that this appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles
Act is not maintainable since the Appellant did not invoke the provisions of Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act in the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal and that he cannot file this appeal except on the grounds enumerated in Sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act. On
perusal of the memorandum of appeal, I have found this appeal has not been preferred on the grounds so enumerated. In support of his contention
Mr. Malhotra has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Shankarayya and Another Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another,
wherein it has been held:
It clearly shows that the Insurance Company when impleaded as a party by the Court can be permitted to contest the proceedings on merits only
of the conditions precedent mentioned in the section are found to be satisfied and for that purpose the Insurance Company has to obtain order in
writing from the Tribunal and which should be a reasoned order by the Tribunal. Unless that procedure is followed, the Insurance Company cannot
have a wider defence on merits than what is available to it by way of statutory defence. It is true that the claimants themselves had joined
Respondent 1, Insurance Company in the claim petition but that was done with a view to thrust the statutory liability on the Insurance Company on
account of the contract of the insurance. That was not an order of the court itself permitting the Insurance Company which was impleaded to avail
of a larger defence on merits on being satisfied on the aforesaid two conditions mentioned in Section 170. Consequently, it must be held that on the
facts of the present case, Respondent 1, Insurance Company was not entitled to file an appeal on merits of the claim which was awarded by the
Tribunal.
5. Mr. Malhotra, learned Counsel for the Respondents, has referred to a decision of this Court reported in 1999 (2) GLT 235 (Oriental Insurance
Co. Ltd. v. Member MACT) which has referred to the above mentioned decision of the Supreme Court. Another decision of this Court referred
to by Mr. Malhotra is one reported in 1999 (1) GLT 440 (Kamakhya Das and Anr. v. Upen Baruah and Ors. wherein it has been held:
It is now to be considered whether the appeal preferred by the Oriental Insurance Company is maintainable in view of this specific provision
incorporated in Section 149(2) of the Act. A reading of Sub-section (2) of Section 149 would show that the Insurance Company is entitled to
prefer an appeal against an award on certain specific circumstances and not otherwise. The grounds of appeal as have been incorporated in the
memo of appeal do not attract any of the permitted grounds. The law is well settled that the Insurance Company is entitled to challenge an award
only on any of those conditions incorporated in the aforesaid section and not otherwise. This appeal by the Insurance Company is, therefore, not
maintainable.
In the instant case also the grounds of appeal as have been incorporated in the memo of appeal do not attract any of the permitted grounds as
mentioned.
Therefore, this appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is not maintainable. Accordingly this appeal stands dismissed. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, I leave the parties to bear their respective costs.
6. Before parting, it has been submitted by Mr. Raju, learned Counsel for the Appellant, that there has been a mistake in calculation of the amount
Rs. 6,48,100/- against item No. 4 which should have been Rs. 5,48,100/- Mr. Raju further submits that the Appellant has already paid to the
Respondents an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on the principle of no fault u/s 140(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. Learned Counsel
Mr. Raju submits that after correction in calculation as aforesaid the total compensation amount would stand at Rs. 5,57,600/- and deducting
therefrom the already paid amount of Rs. 50,000/- u/s 141(3Xa)the Appellant shall be liable to pay Rs. 5,07,600/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Seven
Thousand Six Hundred) only. Mr. Malhotra, learned Counsel for the Respondents, has fairly conceded to the submission of Mr. Raju, learned
Counsel for the Appellant. In view of such submission made at the bar, the total amount the Appellant is liable to pay shall stand modified to Rs.
5,07,600/-. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal''s order as to the rate of interest is left undisturbed and such interest shall be on the modified
amount only.
7. The appeal stands dismissed subject to what has been stated above. No costs.