In Shila Datta (supra), the point of maintainability
of a joint appeal by the owner of a vehicle and the insurer came
up for consideration. Their Lordships observed that there was
no dispute that when an award is made by the Tribunal, the
owner of the vehicle, being a person aggrieved, can file an
appeal challenging his liability on any ground or challenge the
quantum of compensation. An appeal which is maintainable
when the owner of the vehicle files it, does not become nonmaintainable
merely on account of the insurer being a co-
appellant with the owner. When the insurer becomes a coappellant,
the owner of the vehicle does not cease to be a
person aggrieved. This question had come up for consideration
in Narendra Kumar v/s. Yarenissa [1998(9) SCC 202] where
it was held that even in the case of a joint appeal of the insurer
and the owner of the offending vehicle if an award has been
made against the tortfeasor as well as the insurer, even though
an appeal filed by the insurer was not competent, it may not be
dismissed as such. The tortfeasor can proceed with the appeal
after the cause-title is suitably amended by deleting the name
of the insurer.
23] In Shila Datta (supra), Their Lordships also
considered the judgment in Chinnama George and others vs.
N.K. Raju and another [(2000)4 SCC 130] where it held that
a joint appeal would not be maintainable and specifically
observed that this issue did not arise for consideration of the
three Judge Bench in Nicolletta Rohtagi (supra), as the
question therein was whether an insurer could file an appeal.
Their Lordships on a careful consideration were of the view that
the decision in the Chinnama George (supra), to the extent it
holds that a joint appeal is not maintainable, did not lay down
the correct law. As observed in Narendra Kumar (supra), the
owner of the vehicle does not cease to be an aggrieved person
merely because the insurer was ultimately liable under the
terms of the policy or under Section 149 of the Act. If the
owner by himself, can file an appeal as an aggrieved person and
such an appeal is maintainable, we fail to understand how the
presence of the insurer as a co-appellant would make the
appeal not maintainable. Whether the owner joins the insurer
or the insurer joins the owner makes no difference to the fact
that the owner continues to be a person aggrieved. When a
joint appeal is filed, to say that the insurer is not an aggrieved
person and the owner of the vehicle would not be an aggrieved
person, would lead to an anomalous situation and border on an
absurdity. Without entering in the question whether an insurer
is an aggrieved person, Their Lordships made it clear that on
account of the insurer being a co-appellant, would not affect the
maintainability of the appeal.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA.
First Appeal No.78/2009 WITH
Cross Objection No.14/2009
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.
Versus
SHRI GULAM MOHAMMAD,
CORAM : NUTAN D.SARDESSAI, J.
PRONOUNCED ON :22/09/2016.
Citation:2016(6) MHLJ 601
Print Page
of a joint appeal by the owner of a vehicle and the insurer came
up for consideration. Their Lordships observed that there was
no dispute that when an award is made by the Tribunal, the
owner of the vehicle, being a person aggrieved, can file an
appeal challenging his liability on any ground or challenge the
quantum of compensation. An appeal which is maintainable
when the owner of the vehicle files it, does not become nonmaintainable
merely on account of the insurer being a co-
appellant with the owner. When the insurer becomes a coappellant,
the owner of the vehicle does not cease to be a
person aggrieved. This question had come up for consideration
in Narendra Kumar v/s. Yarenissa [1998(9) SCC 202] where
it was held that even in the case of a joint appeal of the insurer
and the owner of the offending vehicle if an award has been
made against the tortfeasor as well as the insurer, even though
an appeal filed by the insurer was not competent, it may not be
dismissed as such. The tortfeasor can proceed with the appeal
after the cause-title is suitably amended by deleting the name
of the insurer.
23] In Shila Datta (supra), Their Lordships also
considered the judgment in Chinnama George and others vs.
N.K. Raju and another [(2000)4 SCC 130] where it held that
a joint appeal would not be maintainable and specifically
observed that this issue did not arise for consideration of the
three Judge Bench in Nicolletta Rohtagi (supra), as the
question therein was whether an insurer could file an appeal.
Their Lordships on a careful consideration were of the view that
the decision in the Chinnama George (supra), to the extent it
holds that a joint appeal is not maintainable, did not lay down
the correct law. As observed in Narendra Kumar (supra), the
owner of the vehicle does not cease to be an aggrieved person
merely because the insurer was ultimately liable under the
terms of the policy or under Section 149 of the Act. If the
owner by himself, can file an appeal as an aggrieved person and
such an appeal is maintainable, we fail to understand how the
presence of the insurer as a co-appellant would make the
appeal not maintainable. Whether the owner joins the insurer
or the insurer joins the owner makes no difference to the fact
that the owner continues to be a person aggrieved. When a
joint appeal is filed, to say that the insurer is not an aggrieved
person and the owner of the vehicle would not be an aggrieved
person, would lead to an anomalous situation and border on an
absurdity. Without entering in the question whether an insurer
is an aggrieved person, Their Lordships made it clear that on
account of the insurer being a co-appellant, would not affect the
maintainability of the appeal.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA.
First Appeal No.78/2009 WITH
Cross Objection No.14/2009
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.
Versus
SHRI GULAM MOHAMMAD,
CORAM : NUTAN D.SARDESSAI, J.
PRONOUNCED ON :22/09/2016.
Citation:2016(6) MHLJ 601
