# National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Swaran

- **Citation:** (2012) 3 ILRA 1381
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-11-06
- **Case number:** Civil Revision No. 118 of 2012
- **Bench:** Saeed-Uz-Zaman Siddiqi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/national-insurance-co-ltd-v-swaran-42421
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

Sri R.K. Misra
Sri B.D. Sharma
Sri R.A. Shukla
Sri R.N. Maurya
Sri Radha Mohan Pandey
Sri Sudhir Kr. Srivatava

Workman's Compensation Act, Section
30-Appeal by insurer against award of
commissioner-on
ground
although

## Text

3 All] Oriental Insurance Comp. Ltd. Lko. V. Smt. Vijay Laxmi and others

1381
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 06.11.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SAEED-UZ-ZAMAN SIDDIQI, J.

Civil Revision No. 118 of 2012

Oriental Insurance Comp. Ltd. Lko.Throu
Its Manager

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Vijay Laxmi and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Waquar Hashim

Counsel for the Respondents:
....................................

Code of Civil Procedure-Section 115revision-maintainability
against
order
rejecting
amendment
application
by
accident claim Tribunal-being interlocutory
in nature-revision-held-not maintainable.

Held: Para-8

In view of the above, revision is not
maintainable
and
deserves
to
be
dismissed. However it is made clear that
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran
Singh and others, (2004) 3 SCC 297 and in
many other cases has repeatedly held that
if the person driving a motor vehicle, at the
time of accident, was not having a valid
driving licence, the insurance company has
to compensate the claimant, with a right
to recover it from the owner.
Case Law discussed:
AIR 1966 SC 153; AIR 2002 SC 559; AIR 2003
SC 2434; (2004) 3 SCC 297

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saeed-Uz-Zaman
Siddiqi, J.)

1. By means of this revision petition,
the revisionist has prayed for setting aside
order dated 17.09.2012, passed by the
Motor
Accident
Claims
Tribunal
(Additional District Judge), Barabanki, in
MACT Case no.91 of 2009.

2. Heard learned counsel for the
revisionist and perused the record.

3. Brief facts of the case are that one
Smt. Vijay Laxmi (opposite party no.1)
filed the claim petition against the
revisionist and opposite party no.4 and 5.
The revisionist / insurance company filed
written statement on 9.9.2011, which was
prepared
on
24.06.2011.
The
case
proceeded by the Tribunal and evidence
was concluded, arguments were heard and
24.08.2012 was fixed for delivery of
judgment. The Insurance Company moved
amendment application paper no.60-B for
addition of plea regarding driving licence,
which has been rejected by the learned
Court below.

4. The amendment has been sought at
a belated stage and no explanation for
moving amendment application after such a
long delay has been given by the revisionist.
In view of this fact the learned Tribunal
rightly observed that the amendment
application has been moved with intention
to delay the disposal of the case, which is
malafide.

5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Pandurang Dhondi Chougule and
others Vs. Maruti Hari Jadhav and others,
reported in AIR 1966 SC, 153 has held as
under:-

".............It is well-settled that a plea of
limitation or a plea of res judicata is a plea
of law which concerns the jurisdiction of the
Court, which tries the proceedings. A
finding on these pleas in favour of the party
1382 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

raising them would oust the jurisdiction of
the Court, and so, an erroneous decision on
these pleas can be said to be concerned
with questions of jurisdiction which fall
within the purview of Section 115 of the
Code. But an erroneous decision on a
question of law reached by the subordinate
Court which has no relation to questions of
jurisdiction of that Court, cannot be
corrected by the High Court under Section
115."

6. This view has been reiterated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Prem Bakshi v.
Dharam Deo, reported in AIR 2002 SC
559. Again in Gayatri Devi and others v.
Shashi Pal Singh reported in 2005 (2) AWC
1072 (SC), it was held that revision under
Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure
is not maintainable against an interim order.

7. In Shiv Shakti Co-op. Housing
Society, Nagpur v. M/s Swaraj Developers
and others, reported in AIR 2003 SC 2434,
it was held:-

"It is fairly a well settled position in
law that the right of appeal is a substantive
right. But there is no such substantive right
in making an application under S. 115.
Section 115 is essentially a source of power
for the High Court to supervise the
subordinate courts. It does not in any way
confer a right on a litigant aggrieved by any
order of the subordinate court to approach
the High Court for relief. The scope for
making a revision under S. 115 is not linked
with a substantive right."

8. In view of the above, revision is not
maintainable and deserves to be dismissed.
However it is made clear that the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and
others, (2004) 3 SCC 297 and in many
other cases has repeatedly held that if the
person driving a motor vehicle, at the time
of accident, was not having a valid driving
licence, the insurance company has to
compensate the claimant, with a right to
recover it from the owner.

9. In view of the settled law on the
point, the learned Tribunal shall take into
consideration while preparing the award and
even when the execution is moved. This
aspect can well be considered by the
Tribunal at subsequent stages as mentioned
hereinabove.

10. With these observations, revision
petition is dismissed in limine.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.10.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRAKASH KRISHNA, J.
THE HON'BLE ARVIND KUMAR TRIPATHI (II), J.

First Appeal From Order No. - 248 of 2002

The
New
India
Assurance
Co.Ltd.,
Bareilly

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Usha Devi (Kumari) and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Rakesh Bahadur

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri R.K. Misra
Sri B.D. Sharma
Sri R.A. Shukla
Sri R.N. Maurya
Sri Radha Mohan Pandey
Sri Sudhir Kr. Srivatava

Workman's Compensation Act, Section
30-Appeal by insurer against award of
commissioner-on
ground
although