National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Giga Ram & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 7980 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 2005/2001)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 2005/2001)
Petitioner: National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Respondent: Giga Ram & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 7980 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 2005/2001)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 2005/2001)
Judges: R.C. LAHOTI & BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Nov 23, 2001
Head Note:
ACCIDENT CLAIMS
Motor vehicle insurance – Claim – Award made by tribunal – Insurance company appealing to High Court within the prescribed period – Memorandum of appeal however, accompanied by photocopy of certified copy of award made by tribunal stating that the certified copy procured by it, had been lost – Certified copy obtained by the insurance company subsequently filed in the High Court, by which time the appeal got barred by 105 days – Insurance company filing application for condonation of delay but High Court not condoning the delay – Insurance company filing SLP appeal – During pendency of appeal, insurance company depositing the award amount in court. Held, High Court not justified in refusing to condone the delay on technical grounds. Appeal ac-cordingly allowed with suitable directions for condonation of delay and disposal of the appeal by the High Court, on the ques-tion as to whether the liability should be satisfied by the owner and driver or the insurance company.
Held:
The High Court was not justified in taking too technical a view of the facts and refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, moved on behalf of the appellant, deserved to be allowed and the appeal deserved to be heard on merits. However, at this stage, we feel that the interest of the claimants should be protected and they should not be dragged into further litigation. (Para 5)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. Feeling aggrieved by an award made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the insurance company filed an appeal in the High Court within the prescribed period of limitation. However, the memo of appeal was accompanied by a photocopy of certified copy of the award given by the tribunal. The appellant-insurance company stated that the certified copy, secured by it for the purpose of filing the appeal, was lost. The insurance company promptly made an application for obtaining another certified copy of the award and on such copy having been secured, the same was filed in the High Court. However, by the time the certified copy came to be filed, the appeal had gone barred by time, by 105 days. The appellant sought for condonation of delay by setting out all the relevant facts. However, the High Court was not persuaded to condone the delay in filing the appeal by reference to the date, by which, certified copy of the award was brought on record of the High Court and therefore, rejected the application seeking condo-nation of delay in filing the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was also dismissed as barred by time. Feeling aggrieved by the above said judgment of the High Court, the insurance company has filed this appeal by special leave.
3. During the pendency of the special leave petition before this Court, the insurance company has deposited an amount of Rs. 2,22,233/- (Two lakhs twenty two thousand and two hundred thirty three rupees only) on 26th February, 2001 vide bank draft no. 439243 dated 15th February, 2001 drawn on Canara Bank. This amount has been kept in a fixed deposit under orders of the Court.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that a sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal was made out, as no mala fide could be attributed to the appellant and the very fact that the memo of appeal accompanied by a photocopy of certi-fied copy of the award was filed in the High Court within the prescribed period of limitation, bears testimony to the bona fides of the appellant company and there was no reason why the certified copy, if not lost, would not have accompanied the memo of appeal when photocopy did accompany therewith. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the appellant has all the sympathy with the claimants, but its right to substantiate its valuable defences, as permissible under the law, and shifting the liabil-ity on the owner and the driver of the vehicle should not be denied. We find merit in the submissions so made.
5. In the background of the facts set out hereinabove, we are of the opinion that the High Court was not justified in taking too technical a view of the facts and refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, moved on behalf of the appellant, deserved to be allowed and the appeal deserved to be heard on merits. However, at this stage, we feel that the interest of the claimants should be protected and they should not be dragged into further litigation. In such circumstances, the appeal is allowed and disposed of in terms of the following directions:
(1) The delay in filing the appeal before the High Court shall stand condoned and the appeal shall be heard and decided on merits, but limited to the question of fixing the liability for satisfying the claim to the extent upheld by the tribunal, that is, whether the liability should be satisfied by the owner and driver or the insurance company? In other words, the contest shall remain confined between the owner and driver on the one hand and the insurer on the other.
(2) Since the claimants are not present before this Court, the amount lying in deposit here shall be withdrawn and remitted to the tribunal. Out of such amount deposited by the insurance company and remitted to the tribunal, the amount due and payable to the claimants calculated upto the date of deposit, i.e., 26th February, 2001 along with interest accrued on fixed deposit on such amount, shall be permitted to be withdrawn by the claimants, subject to adjustment for the amount already received by the claimants under ‘no fault liability clause’ and any further amount deposited by the insurance company under the directions of the High Court and paid to the claimants. The balance amount, if any, shall be returned to the appellant-insurance company.
(3) In the event of the pleas raised by the insurance company before the High Court, and available to be raised by the insurance company, being upheld and the insurance company being exonerated, the insurance company shall be at liberty to reim-burse itself from the owner and the driver.
6. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
1. Leave granted.
2. Feeling aggrieved by an award made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the insurance company filed an appeal in the High Court within the prescribed period of limitation. However, the memo of appeal was accompanied by a photocopy of certified copy of the award given by the tribunal. The appellant-insurance company stated that the certified copy, secured by it for the purpose of filing the appeal, was lost. The insurance company promptly made an application for obtaining another certified copy of the award and on such copy having been secured, the same was filed in the High Court. However, by the time the certified copy came to be filed, the appeal had gone barred by time, by 105 days. The appellant sought for condonation of delay by setting out all the relevant facts. However, the High Court was not persuaded to condone the delay in filing the appeal by reference to the date, by which, certified copy of the award was brought on record of the High Court and therefore, rejected the application seeking condo-nation of delay in filing the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was also dismissed as barred by time. Feeling aggrieved by the above said judgment of the High Court, the insurance company has filed this appeal by special leave.
3. During the pendency of the special leave petition before this Court, the insurance company has deposited an amount of Rs. 2,22,233/- (Two lakhs twenty two thousand and two hundred thirty three rupees only) on 26th February, 2001 vide bank draft no. 439243 dated 15th February, 2001 drawn on Canara Bank. This amount has been kept in a fixed deposit under orders of the Court.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that a sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal was made out, as no mala fide could be attributed to the appellant and the very fact that the memo of appeal accompanied by a photocopy of certi-fied copy of the award was filed in the High Court within the prescribed period of limitation, bears testimony to the bona fides of the appellant company and there was no reason why the certified copy, if not lost, would not have accompanied the memo of appeal when photocopy did accompany therewith. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the appellant has all the sympathy with the claimants, but its right to substantiate its valuable defences, as permissible under the law, and shifting the liabil-ity on the owner and the driver of the vehicle should not be denied. We find merit in the submissions so made.
5. In the background of the facts set out hereinabove, we are of the opinion that the High Court was not justified in taking too technical a view of the facts and refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, moved on behalf of the appellant, deserved to be allowed and the appeal deserved to be heard on merits. However, at this stage, we feel that the interest of the claimants should be protected and they should not be dragged into further litigation. In such circumstances, the appeal is allowed and disposed of in terms of the following directions:
(1) The delay in filing the appeal before the High Court shall stand condoned and the appeal shall be heard and decided on merits, but limited to the question of fixing the liability for satisfying the claim to the extent upheld by the tribunal, that is, whether the liability should be satisfied by the owner and driver or the insurance company? In other words, the contest shall remain confined between the owner and driver on the one hand and the insurer on the other.
(2) Since the claimants are not present before this Court, the amount lying in deposit here shall be withdrawn and remitted to the tribunal. Out of such amount deposited by the insurance company and remitted to the tribunal, the amount due and payable to the claimants calculated upto the date of deposit, i.e., 26th February, 2001 along with interest accrued on fixed deposit on such amount, shall be permitted to be withdrawn by the claimants, subject to adjustment for the amount already received by the claimants under ‘no fault liability clause’ and any further amount deposited by the insurance company under the directions of the High Court and paid to the claimants. The balance amount, if any, shall be returned to the appellant-insurance company.
(3) In the event of the pleas raised by the insurance company before the High Court, and available to be raised by the insurance company, being upheld and the insurance company being exonerated, the insurance company shall be at liberty to reim-burse itself from the owner and the driver.
6. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
