National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Jolly Durga Prasad and Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 5685 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 5916 of 2001)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 5916 of 2001)
Petitioner: National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Respondent: Smt. Jolly Durga Prasad and Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 5685 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 5916 of 2001)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 5916 of 2001)
Judges: SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI & K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Aug 24, 2001
Head Note:
MOTOR VEHICLES
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Sections 167, 176 – Appeal by insurer – Appeal on merits – Maintainability – High Court considering merits and while so considering, pointed that appeal was not maintainable – Parties before Supreme Court conceding that appeal before High Court was maintainable. Held that orders of High Court are set aside. High Court to decide the appeal on merits. (Para 5)
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal by unsuccessful appellant is from the judgment and order of the High Court at Calcutta in FMA No. 424/1998 dated February 14, 2001.
3. We have heard Shri Mukul Rohtagi, the learned additional solicitor general for the appellant and Shri P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel for the respondents.
4. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether interference with the order passed by the High Court at Calcutta in FMA No. 424 of 1998 dated February 14, 2001 is called for.
5. It appears that the objection with regard to maintainability of the appeal filed by the appellant herein, that the insurer cannot prefer an appeal on merits, found favour from the High Court. However, the High Court did consider the appeal on merit but while referring to the merits of the case, observed more than once that the appeal was not maintainable. As the question of maintainability was looming large in passing the order under challenge by the High Court, there has been no proper consideration of the case on merit. We record here that the learned counsel for the respondent as well as learned additional solicitor general have conceded for purposes of this appeal that the appeal before the High Court is maintainable. This is without prejudice to other contentions of the parties. In these circumstances, we consider it appropriate to set aside the order under challenge, restore the appeal to the file of the High Court to be decided by the High Court afresh on merit in accordance with the law.
6. With regard to the compliance of the direction for payment of the amount of compensation pursuant to the award, it is a common ground that about one half of the awarded compensation has been paid to the respondents. The payment of balance of the compensation will abide by the result of the appeal.
7. It is needless to observe that there is now no ground for the respondents to proceed with the contempt case.
8. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal by unsuccessful appellant is from the judgment and order of the High Court at Calcutta in FMA No. 424/1998 dated February 14, 2001.
3. We have heard Shri Mukul Rohtagi, the learned additional solicitor general for the appellant and Shri P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel for the respondents.
4. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether interference with the order passed by the High Court at Calcutta in FMA No. 424 of 1998 dated February 14, 2001 is called for.
5. It appears that the objection with regard to maintainability of the appeal filed by the appellant herein, that the insurer cannot prefer an appeal on merits, found favour from the High Court. However, the High Court did consider the appeal on merit but while referring to the merits of the case, observed more than once that the appeal was not maintainable. As the question of maintainability was looming large in passing the order under challenge by the High Court, there has been no proper consideration of the case on merit. We record here that the learned counsel for the respondent as well as learned additional solicitor general have conceded for purposes of this appeal that the appeal before the High Court is maintainable. This is without prejudice to other contentions of the parties. In these circumstances, we consider it appropriate to set aside the order under challenge, restore the appeal to the file of the High Court to be decided by the High Court afresh on merit in accordance with the law.
6. With regard to the compliance of the direction for payment of the amount of compensation pursuant to the award, it is a common ground that about one half of the awarded compensation has been paid to the respondents. The payment of balance of the compensation will abide by the result of the appeal.
7. It is needless to observe that there is now no ground for the respondents to proceed with the contempt case.
8. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
