Skip to content


Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kalawati Devi and ors. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Subject

Motor Vehicles

Court

Supreme Court of India

Decided On

Case Number

Civil Appeal No. 1824 of 2009 (Arising out of SLP (C) 1429/07)

Judge

Reported in

2009(5)SCALE22

Acts

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 166 and 170; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 47, Rule 1

Appellant

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Respondent

Kalawati Devi and ors.

Appellant Advocate

Meenakshi Midha,; Joy Basu and; B.K. Satija, Advs

Respondent Advocate

Susmita Lal, ; Apurba Lal, ; Ashesh Lal and ;

Disposition

Appeal allowed

Prior history

From the Judgment and Order dated 14.11.2003 in M.A. No. 184/2002 and Final Order and Judgment dated 05.07.2006 in Civil Review No. 37/2004 of the Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi

Excerpt:


- motor vehicles act (59 of 1988)section 173: [dr. arijit pasayat & a.k. ganguly, jj] dismissal for default - in the present case, after reorganisation of state of u.p. the appeal before high court transferred to uttaranchal high court at the time when the appeal taken up for hearing by transferee high court none appeared being unaware of such transfer - held, in such a case the appeal deserved to be heard on merit. hence, the appeal restored with a direction to high court for early disposal. .....dismissed. an application was filed before the high court contending that the conclusion that the insurer had not obtained leave to contest was not factually correct. in fact the leave to contest the claim was granted by the mact on 25.4.2001. the high court rejected the application for review primarily on the ground that the scope of review was very limited under order 47 rule 1 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 (in short the `cpc') and this was not a case of the nature where action in terms of order 47 rule 1, cpc could be taken.3. learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since the high court at the first instance proceeded on erroneous factual premises, it should have recalled the earlier order and heard the matter afresh.4. respondents supported the orders of the high court.5. undisputedly the leave to contest the claim was granted to the insurer on 25.4.2001. those aspects appear to have been overlooked by the high court when the original order dated 14.11.2003 was passed. that being so, we set aside the impugned orders dated 14.11.2003 in ma no. 184 of 2002 and dated 5.7.2006 in civil review no. 37 of 2004 stand quashed. since the matter is pending since long we.....

Judgment:


Arijit Pasayat, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this Appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court in M.A. No. 184 of 2002 dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the `insurer'). The High Court dismissed the appeal primarily on the ground that in the proceedings under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the `Act') when the owner of the vehicle did not take interest after filing written statement, the insurer could have obtained leave to contest as required under Section 170 of the Act and establish that the Sheikh Akhtar, who was the driver responsible for the accident in question, had no valid licence. But no such leave to contest was obtained. Accordingly, appeal was dismissed. An application was filed before the High Court contending that the conclusion that the insurer had not obtained leave to contest was not factually correct. In fact the leave to contest the claim was granted by the MACT on 25.4.2001. The High Court rejected the application for review primarily on the ground that the scope of review was very limited under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the `CPC') and this was not a case of the nature where action in terms of Order 47 Rule 1, CPC could be taken.

3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that since the High Court at the first instance proceeded on erroneous factual premises, it should have recalled the earlier order and heard the matter afresh.

4. Respondents supported the orders of the High Court.

5. Undisputedly the leave to contest the claim was granted to the insurer on 25.4.2001. Those aspects appear to have been overlooked by the High Court when the original order dated 14.11.2003 was passed. That being so, we set aside the impugned orders dated 14.11.2003 in MA No. 184 of 2002 and dated 5.7.2006 in Civil Review No. 37 of 2004 stand quashed. Since the matter is pending since long we request the High Court to dispose of the matter as early as practicable, preferably within two months from the date of receipt of this order.

6. The Appeal is allowed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //