The short question is whether Respondent 1, Insurance Company companyld have filed an appeal in the High Court against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and got the quantum of companypensation reduced when the insured had number filed such appeal and when Respondent 1 Insurance Company had number moved the Tribunal under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for getting the right to companytest the proceedings on merits.
It may be stated that the appellants filed a claim petition in 1989 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gulbarga for death on account of motor accident of their 18 year old son.
It was caused by a jeep which was owned by one Om Prakash, Respondent 2 in this appeal.
The same was being driven by original Respondent 2 Chandrashekher Pattan and the offending vehicle was insured with Respondent 1, Insurance Company.
In the claim petition though the owner and driver appeared, they did number think it fit to file written statement.
However, Respondent 1, Insurance Company carried the matter in appeal and submitted in appeal that the companypensation awarded was on a higher side.
In the written statement it was stated that in case the owner insured did number choose to appear in these proceedings and companytest, then the Insurance Company desired to get proper orders under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
The Insurance Company for reasons best known to it did number think it fit to apply under Section 170 of the Act for getting permission of the Court on proof of relevant companyditions mentioned in the section for companytesting the proceedings on merits.
Ultimately the Tribunal passed an award against the driver, owner and the Insurance Company to the extent of Rs 1,05,000.
Consequently, the defence of the Insurance Company was companyfined to statutory defence only.
Written statement was filed only by Respondent 1 Insurance Company.
The accident occurred on 4 9 1989.
The appeal is taken up for final hearing as the appellants claimants and the respondent Insurance Company, which is the only companytesting party in this appeal, are represented by their companynsel.
That award became final against the owner and the driver.
It is true that the claimants did number object to the Insurance Company joining issues on merits in the Tribunal.
Meaning thereby, the appeal was moved only on the merits of the companypensation claim.
Leave granted.
Counsel for respective parties were finally heard.
