Allahabad High Court
M/S United India Insurance Co. Ltd. ... vs Smt. Maya Devi & Others on 20 February, 2013
Author: Rakesh Tiwari
Bench: Rakesh Tiwari, Anil Kumar Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. 35 First Appeal From Order No.1688 of 2008 M/S United India Insurance Company Ltd. .........Appellant. Vs. Smt. Maya Devi & others .........Respondents. connected with First Appeal From Order No. 1689 of 2008 M/S United India Insurance Company Ltd. .........Appellant. Vs. Mukesh Kumar & others .........Respondents. Connected with First Appeal From Order No. 1690 of 2008 M/S United India Insurance Company Ltd. .........Appellant. Vs. Neeraj Kumar and another .........Respondents. Connected with First Appeal From Order No. 1691 of 2008 M/S United India Insurance Company Ltd. .........Appellant. Vs. Smt. Sheela and another .........Respondents. ******* Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.
Hon'ble Anil Kumar Sharma, J.
Heard Sri Ajai Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri S.D. Ojha, appearing for the respondents, and perused the record.
Sri S.D. Ojha has raised a preliminary objection at the very out set about maintainability of appeals relying upon the judgment dated 12.3.2012 of the Apex Court in S.L.P. (Civil) No (s) 2341 of 2011 which arises out from the judgment and order of this Court dated 01.04.2010 passed in F.A.F.O. No. 1055 of 2010: The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Kanchan Kumari & others passed by the Court. The order dated 1.4.2010 reads thus:
"This is an appeal filed by the Insurance Company against the judgement and decree dated 28.1.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Addl. District Judge (Court No. 4), Saharanpur in M.A.C. No. 134 of 2008.
Perusal of impugned order shows that the Insurance Company has got right of recovery, therefore, it cannot be said that the Insurance Company is aggrieved by the award. However, it is open for the Insurance Company to recover the amount from the owner.
Since the appellant is not an aggrieved party, therefore the appeal is dismissed."
The Oriental Insurance Company challenged the above order before the Apex Court by way of S.L.P. (Civil) No. (s). 2341 of 2011, wherein the Hon'ble Court after hearing the parties' counsel dismissed the special leave petition with the following observations:
"In our view, the direction given by the Tribunal to the petitioner to pay compensation and recover the same from the owner is in consonance with the law laid down by this Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh and others (2004) 3 SCC 297.
The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed."
In view of the above judgment of the Apex Court, it is quite clear that where right to recover the amount under the award from the owner of the vehicle had been given to the Insurance Company, it is not an aggrieved party within the meaning of Section 173 (1) Motor Vehicles Act, and as such they can not prefer any appeal against the award in question.
For the above reasons, we find that the instant appeals are not maintainable as the appellants are not 'any person aggrieved' within the meaning of Section 173 (1) Motor Vehicles Act.
Accordingly, all the appeals are dismissed as not maintainable.
Statutory amount made by the appellant with this Court be remitted back to the concerned Tribunal within three weeks for adjustment.
Dated:20.2.2013 RCT/-