Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Surgyan and ors. - Court Judgment |
| Insurance;Motor Vehicles |
| Rajasthan High Court |
| May-10-2000 |
| Arun Madan, J. |
| I(2001)ACC677; 2000(3)WLC632 |
| Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. |
| Surgyan and ors. |
| and Narendra Kumar and Anr. v. Yarenissa and Ors.
|
- labour & servicesappointment: [shiv kumar sharma, ashok parihar & k.s. rathore, jj] merit list rajasthan secondary education act (42 of 1957), section 28 & rajasthan board of secondary education rules, rule 20 - held, improved marks obtained by candidate after re-appearing in examination can be considered for drawing the merit list of candidate for appointment to post of teacher. circular issued by the director of primary & secondary education ousting such candidate from consideration in merit list is illegal and without jurisdiction. - 3. the learned counsel for the appellant has not been in a position to state as to how his plea would overcome the effect of the aforesaid observation of the apex court except to say that though application was filed as per section 170 of the act but, no permission was granted. 4. hence, i do not find any good or valid ground to accept this appeal......only if the condition precedent as mentioned in section 170 of the motor vehicles act, 1988 are complied with and then insurance company has obtained an order in writing from the tribunal and it should be a reasoned order. other wise, the insurance company cannot have wider defence on merits than what is available to it by way of statutory defence.3. the learned counsel for the appellant has not been in a position to state as to how his plea would overcome the effect of the aforesaid observation of the apex court except to say that though application was filed as per section 170 of the act but, no permission was granted.4. hence, i do not find any good or valid ground to accept this appeal. as such, the same is dismissed summarily at the admission stage itself.
Arun Madan, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 12.2.1999 passed by the learned MACT, Dausa whereby, the award of Rs. 3,30,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% has been passed in favour of the respondents-claimants.
2. In the matters of Shankarayya and Anr. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. : AIR1998SC2968 and Narendra Kumar and Anr. v. Yarenissa and Ors. : (1998)9SCC202 the Apex Court held that Insurance Company can be permitted to contest the proceedings on merits only if the condition precedent as mentioned in Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are complied with and then Insurance Company has obtained an order in writing from the Tribunal and it should be a reasoned order. Other wise, the Insurance Company cannot have wider defence on merits than what is available to it by way of statutory defence.
3. The learned Counsel for the appellant has not been in a position to state as to how his plea would overcome the effect of the aforesaid observation of the Apex Court except to say that though application was filed as per Section 170 of the Act but, no permission was granted.
4. Hence, I do not find any good or valid ground to accept this appeal. As such, the same is dismissed summarily at the admission stage itself.