United India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Smt. Santosh Rajpal & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 11 Dec 2007
- Bench
- KAILASH GAMBHIR
Provisions considered
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ss. 149(2), 170
Judgment
injuries sustained by respondent no. 1, Smt. Santosh Rajpal. The brief facts which are necessary for deciding the present appeal inter alia are that respondent No.1 Smt. Santosh Rajpal was going towards her residence in a rickshaw after seeing her doctor. When she reached near Escorts Hospital, a vehicle bearing registration no. DL 3CB 2635, driven by the driver Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta in a very rash and negligent manner hit the petitioner due to which she suffered multiple injuries and she was removed to Holy Family Hospital from the accident site. The Tribunal after taking into consideration the facts of the case as well as evidence led by the parties had passed an award vide order dated 09.04.2007 in the sum of Rs. 2,81,100/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum payable from the date of the institution of the petition till the date of realisation. MAC. APP. No. 338/2007 The said order passed by the Tribunal is now under challenge in the present appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant at considerable length. Mr. Sundeep Kumar, counsel appearing for the respondent has taken a preliminary objection to the very maintainability of the present appeal on the ground that the appellant cannot assail the findings of the Tribunal on the quantum of compensation as determined by the Tribunal. Counsel contends that the appellant had not taken over the defence of the owner and driver as envisaged under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act and, therefore, is debarred from challenging the impugned award so as to assail the findings of the Tribunal on the quantum of compensation. Counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the following judgments of the Apex Court:-
JT 2002 (7) SC 251, National Insurance Co. Vs. Nicollata Rohtagi;
AIR 1998 SC 2968, Shankarayya & Anr. vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.; MAC. APP. No. 338/2007
(2002) 9 SCC 527, Jagdish Prasad Pandey vs. Darshan Singh & Anr.;
(2002) 6 SCC 52, H.S. Ahammed Hussain & Anr. Vs. Irfan Ahammed & Anr.;
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — ss. 149(2), 170.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Delhi High Court, on 11 Dec 2007. The bench was KAILASH GAMBHIR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.