The single-judge High Court held that the writ petition challenging the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award was not maintainable. The court expressed no opinion on the merits and left the insurer free to pursue the statutory appeal.
Writ petition dismissed; liberty reserved to file an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
2024:HHC:5275
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No. 6101 of 2011
Decided on: July 16 , 2024
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
...Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Surjit Kaur & others.
...Respondents
Coram:
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
1Whether approved for reporting?
For the petitioner : Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. N.K. Thakur, Senior Advocate with Mr. Divya Raj Singh, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 5.
Mr. Romesh Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sumit Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No. 6 & 7.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
Respondents No. 1 to 5 were the claimants before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Una, Himachal Pradesh (in short the ‘Tribunal’). On account of death of Sh. Karam chand (husband of respondent No. 1 and father of respondents No. 2 to 5) in a motor accident that occurred on 30.07.2009, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of ` 37,41,000/- with interest @ 9%
1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2
per annum vide Award dated 10.02.2011. The liability to pay the compensation was fastened upon the petitioner (insurer of the vehicle). The petitioner-insurer has assailed the Award by filing the instant writ petition.
2. This writ petition has been filed claiming the following substantive relief:-
“(A) A writ of certiorari be issued quashing and setting aside the award/judgment (Annexure P-3), passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II), Una, H.P. dated 10th February, 2011, against the petitioner or any other order or directions which may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may be passed or in the alternative the award be modified by reducing the amount awarded by the Tribunal below.”
3. In view of law laid down in CWP No. 5023 of 2009, titled Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Pappu & others,
decided on 28.03.2016, learned counsel on both sides are in agreement that writ petition is not maintainable against the Award passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Therefore, nothing is left to be adjudicated in this writ petition on merits, being not maintainable. The same is accordingly disposed of with liberty reserved to the petitioner/insurer to challenge the impugned award in an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, if so
3
advised. In case the appeal is filed, the period spent in pursuing the writ remedy before this Court shall be excluded while computing the period of limitation.
4. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
July 16 , 2024 (PK)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award is maintainable.
Whether the petitioner can seek modification of the award by the High Court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
CWP No. 5023 of 2009, Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Pappu & othersReferred¶23
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
Smt. Surjit Kaur
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
