AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
H.C. Ramesh, J.—In this writ petition, the petitioner/United India Insurance Co. Ltd. is challenging the execution proceeding in Execution No. 57/2004 pending before the Court of the Additional District Judge and Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chikmagalur, the execution proceeding has been filed by respondent No. 1 against the petitioner and respondent No. 2 to execute the award dated 10.10.2003 passed in the claim proceeding in M.V.C. No. 237/2000 awarding a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- to respondent No. 1 for the injuries suffered by him in a motor accident that occurred on 19.02.2000.
I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/Insurance Company submits that no notice of the claim proceeding in MVC. No. 237/2000 referred to above had been issued to the petitioner/insurer and hence in view of Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it is not permissible in law to execute the award as against the Insurance Company. He also submits that the Insurance Company was not arrayed as a party to the claim proceeding and in the award, no liability is fixed on the Insurance Company.
The facts stated above are not in dispute. On the aforesaid facts, in my opinion, the Tribunal had erred in law in entertaining the execution petition as against the petitioner/Insurance Company. A plain reading of Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 would show that no sum shall be payable by an insurer in respect of any judgment or award unless the insurer had notice of the claim proceeding. In other words, any judgment or award given without notice to the insurer is inexecutable against the insurer. In the present case, no notice of the claim proceeding had been issued to the petitioner/Insurance Company. Hence, the execution proceeding as against the petitioner is not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, I make the following order:
(i) Execution No. 57/2004 stands dismissed as against the petitioner-United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
(ii) the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the amount deposited by it with the Tribunal.
It is stated that respondent No. 2 wants to apply to the Tribunal for setting aside of the ex-parte award made in MVC. No. 237/2000; it is clarified that this order will not come in her way to apply to the Tribunal in accordance with law.
Petition disposed of.