Leave granted.
One of the questions which arose for consideration before the learned
Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal was as to whether the vehicle in question was
insured with the appellant–Insurance Company or not.
It was contended that Truck No. HR-03 1213 was insured and not the
Truck No. HR-03 1215. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have filed a counter affidavit
before us annexing therewith the xerox copy of the Cover Note. From a perusal it
appears that the truck in question, namely, Truck No. HR-03 1215 was insured
with the appellant. It also appears from the Award of the learned Tribunal that
appellant before us had filed a separate written statement. Admittedly the
contention raised herein had not
...2/-
been raised before the Tribunal. The High Court, in that view of the matter,
refused to go into such contention and, in our opinion, rightly.
The second contention raised by the learned counsel that the claim
petition filed under Section 166 and Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
was not maintainable. Learned counsel may be correct, but, from a perusal of the
Award of the learned Tribunal it appears that it proceeded on the basis that the
claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Act and not under Section 163A
thereof. Only because the claimant has mentioned both the aforementioned
provisions, the same would not warrant our interference, if the correct procedure
for disposal of the claim petitions have been followed. We are, therefore, not
inclined to interfere with the Award as also with the impugned judgment of the
High Court.
This appeal is accordingly, dismissed.
(S.B. SINHA)
New Delhi, September 26, 2008.