Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 246 (RAJ)

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. USHA

2004-02-20

PRAKASH TATIA

body2004
Judgment PRAKASH TATIA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties. ( 2 ) THE only question raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal has committed illegality in awarding interest at the rate of 12 per cent whereas the Tribunal ought to have awarded interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum in view of the judgments of the Honble Supreme court delivered in the cases of Kaushnuma begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , 2001 ACJ 428 (SC) and United India Insurance co. Ltd. v. Patricia Jean Mahajan, 2002 ACJ 1441 (SC ). Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that no interest can be awarded on the amount awarded on the basis of future prospects of earnings. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondents-claimants raised objection about the maintainability of the appeal. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the interest awarded by the Claims Tribunal also forms part of the award only relating to compensation to the claimants. It is also submitted that the law permits awarding of interest by the Tribunal. Since this appeal is by the insurance company and the insurance company has no right to challenge the quantum awarded by the Tribunal and only defences available to the insurance company are enumerated in section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The statute itself excluded all other challenges and the honble Supreme Court in many cases has already held that the insurance company has right to challenge the award only on the grounds which are available to them under the statutory provisions of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988. Learned counsel for the respondents relies upon the judgment of the Honble Apex Court in the case of national Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nicolletta rohtagi, 2002 ACJ 1950 (SC ). ( 4 ) THE judgments delivered by the Apex court referred above were the judgments delivered by exercising powers of Supreme court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. When the Honble Supreme court has laid down that the appeal by the insurance company challenging quantum is not maintainable and since the quantum includes the entire compensation including interest, therefore, the appellant insurance company has no right to challenge the award and award of interest also. When the Honble Supreme court has laid down that the appeal by the insurance company challenging quantum is not maintainable and since the quantum includes the entire compensation including interest, therefore, the appellant insurance company has no right to challenge the award and award of interest also. ( 5 ) IN view of the above, the appeal of the appellant is, therefore, not maintainable and the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. Appeal dismissed.