9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Appeal against the reduction of compensation amount by the Division Bench of the High Court, maintainability of a petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution by the insurer, statutory right of appeal for the insurer under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Judgment Summary: The appellant's son died in a motor vehicle accident, leading to a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal awarded compensation, which the insurer appealed against. The High Court reduced the compensation amount, prompting the insurer to file a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The appellant contended that the insurer's appeal under Section 173 of the Act was the appropriate remedy, not a petition under Article 227. The Supreme Court agreed, emphasizing the statutory right of appeal for insurers under Section 173 of the Act. The Court clarified that an insurer can appeal against a Tribunal's award on limited grounds specified in Section 149(2) of the Act. However, if collusion or lack of contestation occurs, the insurer can seek permission to contest the claim on the insured's grounds. The Court rejected the argument that an insurer could file a petition under Article 226/227 due to limited appeal grounds, citing the legal position that the appeal's scope is defined by Section 149(2) of the Act. Highlighting the insurer's statutory right to appeal, the Court ruled that filing a petition under Article 227 was misconceived. The supervisory jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 227 is limited to ensuring lower courts act within their authority, not correcting legal errors. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, emphasizing that the insurer should have pursued the appeal route under Section 173 of the Act. The appeal was allowed, with no costs imposed, and the insurer was granted the option to file an appeal if permissible under the law.
|
