1. Leave granted.
2. These two appeals, both by the appellant, are directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dated 9-4-1997, allowing the appeal of the second respondent (FAFO No. 599 of 1991), the Insurance Company, filed under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 whereby the High Court reduced the award of compensation to the appellant. By the same judgment of the High Court appeal filed by the appellant (FAFO No. 917 of 1991) for enhancement of compensation was dismissed.
3. The appellant in a motor accident which occurred on 14-11-1989 suffered serious injuries. His right leg had to be amputated from the thigh. On the petition for claim filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal he was awarded compensation amounting to Rs. 9, 64, 000. Against that order the Insurance Company, the second respondent, filed the appeal and the High Court reduced the amount of compensation as mentioned above.
4. We have been referred to the decision of this Court in Shankarayya v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. ( 1998 SC 1383) where it has been held that the Insurance Company has no right to file the appeal. Reference was made under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which reads as under :
"170. Inpleading insurer in certain cases. - Where in the course of any inquiry, the Claims Tribunal is satisfied that -
(a) there is collusion between the person making the claim and the person against whom the claim is made, or
(b) the person against whom the claim is made has failed to contest the claim,
it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, direct that the insurer who may be liable in respect of such claim, shall be impleaded as a party to the proceeding and the insurer so impleaded shall thereupon have, without prejudice to the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of Section 149, the right to contest the claim on all or any of the grounds that are available to the person against whom the claim has been made."
This court then said (SCC pp. 142-43, para 4)
"4. 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 if 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. There is no dispute that the aforesaid decision of this Court covers the issues involved in the present case in all respects. Learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company, however, submitted that in an earlier decision of this Court in G.M., Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas ( 1993 SC 1302 : 1993 SC 1302 : 1993 SC 1302) this Court has laid down certain guidelines for the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to follow as to what multiplier to be applied. But that is not the issue before us. Here we are considering the very right of the Insurance Company to file appeal against the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal determining compensation, which it has none in the present set of circumstances. Accordingly, the impugned order of the High Court is set aside and that of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is restored.
6. As far as the appeal filed by the appellant seeking enhancement of compensation [Civil Appeal No. 5681 of 1999 arising out of SLP (C) No. 21786 of 1997] is concerned, nothing has been said in support of that. That appeal is, therefore, rejected. Civil Appeal No. 5680 of 1999 [arising out of SLP (C) No. 21785 of 1997] is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
