Are you looking for a legal research tool ?
Get Started
Do check other products like LIBIL, a legal due diligence tool to get a litigation check report and Case Management tool to monitor and collaborate on cases.

National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Mrs. Meena Kumari And Ors

National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Mrs. Meena Kumari And Ors

(High Court Of Himachal Pradesh)

| 28-11-2003

5. On the other hand, there is Ex. RW 1/A photostat copy of the licence of the driver Manish Kumar son of Sh. Gorakh Chand produced by the owner of the vehicle. How this was not the copy of the valid driving licence could not be shown by the learned Counsel. That being the position, submission of Mr. Sharma, Counsel for driving licence is without any legal evidence having been produced during the course of trial before the Tribunal below. Accordingly it is rejected.

6. Now coming to the question of challenge on the quantum of compensation, urged by Mr. Sharma. Suffice it to say that in law in a given situation, appellant could have sought leave of the Tribunal below under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to contest the claim of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 claimants, on all grounds which were open to the owner of the vehicle (Rakesh Walia) respondent No. 6. Record of the Tribunal below shows that no such attempt was made, hi case the appellant genuinely felt that this is a case which was required to be contested on all grounds it ought to have taken care of its interest during the course of trial. Merely because compensation is excessive is by itself no ground enabling this Court to interfere with an award. Reason being that defence of an Insurance Company, like appellant are limited under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. So this plea what to talk of an appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is not even open under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. See Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Ltd., and Anr. : [2003]1SCR567 and National Insurance Co. v. Soma Devi and Ors. Latest I (2003) A.C.C. 162 : H.L.J. 2003 (H.P.) 982. (F.B.)

7. This is of course subject to exception as contained in Section 170 of the Motor Vehciles Act, 1988, See Shankarayya and Anr. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. : AIR1998SC2968 .

No other point urged.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no ground in this appeal which is dismissed at the admission stage.

No order in view of the orders passedwin the main matter Disposed of Accordingly.

Advocate List
Bench
  • HON'BLE JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR GOEL
Eq Citations
  • 3 (2004) ACC 209
  • LQ/HimHC/2003/202
Head Note

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Ss. 149, 170 and 173 — Excessive compensation — Appeal against award of, under Art. 226/227 of Constitution — Maintainability of — Appellant Insurance Company not taking care of its interest during course of trial — Held, merely because compensation is excessive is by itself no ground enabling Supreme Court to interfere with an award — Appellant Insurance Company, like appellant are limited under S. 149 of M.V. Act, 1988 — So this plea what to talk of an appeal under S. 173 of M.V. Act, 1988, is not even open under Arts. 226/227 of Constitution — Appeal dismissed at admission stage — Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2000, S. 149