Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 353 (HP)

Kanta Devi v. Hem Singh

2018-03-14

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2018
JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. (Oral) - Even though the claimants have been awarded compensation against the owner under the Workmen''s Compensation Act, yet they have filed the instant appeal for modification of the award only to the extent that instead of owner, the Insurance Company be held liable to pay the award amount. 2. It is not in dispute that the award passed in favour of the claimants fastening liability upon the owner, respondent No. 1 was assailed by him only to that extent by filing FAO No. 51/2010, which was dismissed as time barred vide judgment/order dated 1.4.2011. Therefore, in the given circumstances, the moot question is whether the appeal on behalf of the claimants is maintainable. 3. Placing reliance upon the judgment passed by learned single Judge of this Court (Hon''ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge, the then) in Surjit Singh v. Jagraj Singh, 2006 (2) Shim. L.C. 48 , Mr. Raman Sethi, learned counsel for the claimants would vehemently argue that the Motor Vehicles Act provides for compulsory insurance coverage of the motor vehicles and even in this case, it was on account of use of motor vehicle that the compensation stood awarded though under the Workmen''s Compensation Act and, therefore, initially liability to pay compensation should be fastened upon the Insurance Company as probability of recovering compensation in such cases turns into certainty. Strong Reliance is placed on the observations as contained in para 6 of the aforesaid judgment, which reads thus:- "6. I shall first take up the preliminary objection raised by Mr. Chauhan. Mr. Chauhan has submitted that as per Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, only a person aggrieved by the award of the claims tribunal can prefer an appeal. He submits that since the award has been passed in favour of the claimants and they are satisfied with the compensation awarded they cannot be said to be persons aggrieved within the meaning of the Act. According to him merely the fact that the Insurance Company has been exonerated would not bring the appellants within the ambit of the expression ''person aggrieved''. In support of his contention he has relied upon a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Bondugula Samyuktha Devi v. T, Shreedhar Reddy and Others . The judgment cited by Mr. Chauhan, in my opinion is of no help to him. In support of his contention he has relied upon a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Bondugula Samyuktha Devi v. T, Shreedhar Reddy and Others . The judgment cited by Mr. Chauhan, in my opinion is of no help to him. In that case the award had been passed against the owner as well as the Insurance Company but not against the driver. The claimants filed an appeal that the driver should also be held liable. The Court in that case held that firstly the driver is not a necessary party to proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act and secondly since the claimant was entitled to recover the amount from the Insurance Company and the owner he could not be said to be an aggrieved party as far as the driver is concerned. The judgment has been delivered in the peculiar facts of the said case. The Motor Vehicles Act provides for compulsory insurance coverage of motor vehicles. This has been done with the intention that the accident victims are in fact able to get compensation from the Insurance Company. The claimants may or may not be able to recover compensation from the owner but in case the Insurance Company is held liable then the probability of recovering the compensation turns into certainly. Therefore, a claimant can genuinely feel aggrieved if the Insurance Company is not held liable for compensation. The claimant can legitimately file the appeal on the ground that the Insurance Company should be made liable since this would make his recovery easy and not illusory. While taking this view I am supported by the decision of the Orissa High Court in Padmabati Devi v. Dasarathi Sahu and Another , Braja Kishore Mohanty v. M.C. Shyamasundar and Another, 1989 ACJ 450 . However, the mere fact that he has a right to file an appeal does not mean that the Insurance Company should always be held liable. This shall depend on the facts of each case." 4. Evidently, ratio of the aforesaid judgment categorically holds that a claimant can genuinely feel aggrieved if the Insurance Company is not held liable for compensation, therefore, can maintain and file the appeal on the ground that the Insurance Company should be made liable since this would make his recovery easy and not illusory. 5. Evidently, ratio of the aforesaid judgment categorically holds that a claimant can genuinely feel aggrieved if the Insurance Company is not held liable for compensation, therefore, can maintain and file the appeal on the ground that the Insurance Company should be made liable since this would make his recovery easy and not illusory. 5. However, it would be noticed that conflicting view has been taken by another bench of this Hon''ble Court (Hon''ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, the then Chief Justice of this Court) in FAO (MVA) No. 1/2007, decided on 22.8.2014 and thereafter in FAO No. 316/2009, decided on 8.1.2016. In both the aforesaid appeals, the claimants had assailed the impugned awards only on the ground that the Insurance Company had been exonerated by its liability to pay the award amount as the contract of insurance had not been proved. Even though, the Insurance Company was not liable, yet it was contended before the court that at the first stage, the liability to pay the award amount should be fastened upon the insurance company. Answering the question in FAO No. 1/2007, it was observed as under: "8. I wonder, how the claimants can question the impugned awards on the ground of saddling only the driver with liability. The driver has not questioned the same. The claimants have prayed for compensation which stands granted, thus cannot be said to be "aggrieved" in terms of the provisions of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for short "the MV Act". It is apt to reproduce Section 173 of the M.V. Act herein: "173. Appeals.- (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) any person aggrieved by an award of a Claims Tribunal may, within ninety days from the date of the award, prefer an appeal to the High Court: Provided that no appeal by the person who is required to pay any amount in terms of such award shall be entertained by the High Court unless he has deposited with it twenty-five thousand rupees or fifty per cent of the amount so awarded, whichever is less, in the manner directed by the High Court: Provided further that the High Court may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of ninety days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal in time. (2) No appeal shall lie against any award of a Claims Tribunal if the amount in dispute in the appeal is less than ten thousand rupees ." 9. Any person aggrieved by an award can prefer an appeal. The words "aggrieved person" are defined in Black''s Law Dictionary as under:- "Aggrieved person. See Aggrieved party. One whose legal right is invaded by an act complained of, or whose pecuniary interest is directly and adversely affected by a decree or judgment. One whose right of property may be established or divested. The word "aggrieved" refers to a substantial grievance, a denial of some personal, pecuniary or property right, or the imposition upon a party of a burden or obligation." 10. In Law Lexicon, the words "aggrieved person" are defined as under:- "Aggrieved person.-A person can be said to be aggrieved, if apart from the general interest such a person, as a member of the public, may have, he has a particular or special interest in the subject-matter supposed to be wrongly decided." 12. Having said so, the appeals are not maintainable and merits to be dismissed; are dismissed as such and the impugned awards are upheld. 6. Similar reiteration of law can be found in FAO No. 316/2009, wherein it was observed as under:- "3. The claimant has questioned the impugned award on the following two grounds: (i) The Tribunal has fallen in an error in saddling the owner with liability; (ii) the amount of compensation is meager. 4. Both the grounds are not tenable for the following reasons. 5. The owner has not questioned the impugned award. How can it lie in the mouth of the claimant that the Tribunal has fallen in an error in saddling the insured-owner with the liability. Thus, the argument of the learned Counsel is turned down." 7. Noticeably, the decisions, as referred to above, have been rendered in appeals arising under the Motor Vehicles Act, whereas the instant appeal has been preferred under the Workmen''s Compensation Act, yet I am of the considered view that at the first stage the conflict of decisions is required to be resolved and only thereafter can this appeal be decided on merits. 8. 8. Apparently, the views taken by different learned Judges are irreconcilable and rather conflicting on the aforesaid controversy and therefore, it has become necessary to refer the matter to the Hon''ble the Chief Justice for constituting a larger bench to resolve the conflict between the decisions as noticed above. 9. Therefore, let records of this appeal be placed before the Hon''ble the Acting Chief Justice for constituting a larger bench.