Skip to content


United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kanwal NaIn Sachdeva and ors. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 3013 of 1999
Judge
Reported in(1999)9SCC193
ActsCode Of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Section 96
AppellantUnited India Insurance Co. Ltd.
RespondentKanwal NaIn Sachdeva and ors.
Prior historyArising out of SLP (C) No. 9 of 1999
Excerpt:
- [ b.n. kirpal and; s. rajendra babu, jj.] - code civil procedure, 1908 — section. 96 — first appeal — duty of court — court of first appeal is duty-bound to discuss the merits of the contentions raised by the appellant — high court's order dismissing the appeal set aside and matter restored to file of high court -- the appellant herein had filed an appeal against the judgment of the motor accident claims tribunal disputing its liability to pay the sum awarded.  we accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the high court and restore fao no. 1646 of 1998 to the file of the high court. - the contentions raised were dismissed by the high court finding the mact award well reasoned......special leave granted.2. the appellant herein had filed an appeal against the judgment of the motor accident claims tribunal disputing its liability to pay the sum awarded. the main contention of the appellant herein was that the licensed capacity of the bus which was insured and which met with the accident was only to have 22 passengers but in fact it was carrying nearly 48 passengers and, therefore, the insurance company was absolved of its liability.3. the high court dismissed the appeal by a cryptic order stating that no case had been made out for interfering in the well-reasoned award of the motor accident claims tribunal. in our opinion, the high court ought to have discussed the merits of the contentions raised by the insurance company especially when it was dealing with the.....
Judgment:

B.N. Kirpal and; S. Rajendra Babu, JJ.

1. Special leave granted.

2. The appellant herein had filed an appeal against the judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal disputing its liability to pay the sum awarded. The main contention of the appellant herein was that the licensed capacity of the bus which was insured and which met with the accident was only to have 22 passengers but in fact it was carrying nearly 48 passengers and, therefore, the Insurance Company was absolved of its liability.

3. The High Court dismissed the appeal by a cryptic order stating that no case had been made out for interfering in the well-reasoned award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. In our opinion, the High Court ought to have discussed the merits of the contentions raised by the Insurance Company especially when it was dealing with the first appeal against the order of the Tribunal.

4. We accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and restore FAO No. 1646 of 1998 to the file of the High Court.


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