Page No.# 1/10 GAHC020004122022 2026:GAU-NL:123 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : MACApp./6/2022 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REPRESENTED HEREIN BY THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,DIMAPUR, NAGALAND VERSUS SHRI. GAURI SHANKAR RATHI AND 2 ORS S/O LT. BADRILAL RATHI, R/O BIHPURIA TOWN, WARD NO.1, P.S - BIHPURIA, LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM 2:MS. HEMA RATHI D/O SHRI. GAURI SHANKAR RATHI R/O BIHPURIA TOWN WARD NO.1 P.S - BIHPURIA LAKHIMPUR ASSAM 3:SHRI. GOPI KISHAN RATHI S/O LATE BADRILAL RATHI R/O OF BIHPURIA TOWN WARD NO. 2 P.O. BIHPURIA LAKHIMPUR ASSAM-784161 VEHICLE OWNER-CUM-DRIVER OF MOTOR BIKE BEARING NO. AS-07/E-203 Page No.# 2/10 Advocate for the Petitioner : LAKNYEI PHOM, KIM PIENYU Advocate for the Respondent : B. N. SARMAH, BEFORE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER ORDER 16.03.2026 The instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been preferred by the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. against the impugned Judgment and Award dated 23.09.2021, passed by the learned MACT, Mokokchung, Nagaland, in MAC Case No. 20/2018. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, Ms. Kim Pienyu as well as Mr. B.N. Sarma, learned counsel for the claimants/respondents. 3. The case of the appellant herein is that the claimants-respondents had filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal, MACT, Mokokchung, Nagaland, which was registered as MAC Case No. 20/2018, praying for compensation on account of injury sustained in a motor accident on 05.03.2017 involving a motor-bike (Hero Honda) bearing Registration No. AS-07/E-2030. The appellant submits that the summons from the Tribunal had been received on 10.07.2018 and 21.08.2018. Accordingly, the counsel for the Insurer entered appearance by way of filing written statement cum objection and an application seeking permission under Section 170 of the Act was also filed. However, the Tribunal did not admit the written statement or the application under Section 170 of the Act. Page No.# 3/10 4. It is also the case of the appellant that the appellant/Insurer was not made a party or even a proforma respondent in the claim petition in MAC 20/2018 and, therefore, the appellant could not contest the claim petition effectively. 5. It is also the case of the appellant that the Tribunal has passed the impugned Judgment and Award dated 23.09.2021, without considering the fact that the injured was a businessman and that due to the injury and disability the claimant did not suffer any loss of income and his business is still continuing. Moreover, the learned court below had arrived at the percentage of loss of earning capacity without any evidence that the claimant had suffered permanent disability as the doctor was never examined. 6. It is also submitted that the learned Tribunal has passed the impugned Judgment and Award dated 23.09.2021 without considering that there was no evidence to show that any future medical expenditure would be required but the learned Tribunal has granted ₹2 Lakhs for future medical expenditure. 7. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned Judgment and Award dated 23.09.2021 has been passed mechanically and without application of mind by holding the appellant liable to pay the final award of ₹64,97,880/- (Rupees Sixty-four lakhs Ninety-seven thousand Eight hundred Eighty only) and, therefore, the impugned Judgment and Award is liable to be quashed and set aside. Page No.# 4/10 8. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the following cases in order to substantiate her submissions: (i) Raj Kumar Versus Ajay Kumar and Another reported in (2011) 1SCC 343, (ii) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Lalliansawmi & Another reported in 2010 (2) GLT 176 and (iii) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Chandreswar Thakur & Others reported in 2001 (1) GLT 393. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimants-respondents, Mr. B.N. Sarma has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the instant appeal. The learned counsel submits that in MAC Case 20/2018, the appellant-Insurer was only a noticee as required under Section 149(2)/150(2) of the Act. And as such, unless by a reasoned order passed by the Tribunal under Section 170 of the Act, on being satisfied of the two conditions, allows the insurer to be impleaded as a party to the proceedings, no insurer can contest or raise grounds other than the defenses allowed in Section 149(2) of the Act. In the instant case, no such prayer was made by the Insurer before the Tribunal praying for allowing the appellant/Insurer to contest the claim on all or any of the grounds that are available to the person against whom the claim has been made. The Insurer has not even filed any application before this Court also along with the Memorandum of Appeal praying for allowing the appellant to file the appeal on all available grounds. It is Page No.# 5/10 submitted that the Motor Vehicles Act does not require the claimant to implead the insurer as a party respondent. The scheme of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 as contained in Chapters XI and XII proceeds on the basis that an insurer need not be impleaded as a party to the claim proceedings and that it should only be issued a statutory notice under Section 149(2) of the Act so that it can be made liable to pay the compensation awarded by the tribunal and also resist the claim on any of the grounds mentioned in Clause (a) and (b) of Sub-Section (2) of Section 149. Section 149 (1), (2) and (7) clearly refers to the insurer being merely a noticee and not a party. As such, learned counsel submits that no error has been committed by the Tribunal or by the claimants by not impleading the Insurer as a party respondent. 10. Learned counsel submits that in the instant case, despite service of notice on several occasions by the Tribunal, the Insurer remained absent before the Tribunal and neither engaged any counsel to represent the Insurer and, as such, ex-parte proceedings were allowed against the appellant-Insurer. Even otherwise, the appellant-Insurer did not avail the remedy of filing a petition under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code before the Tribunal to set aside the ex-parte decree against the appellant-Insurer. 11. The learned counsel for the claimants-respondents further submits that the claim made by the appellant that the written statement and petition filed under Section 170 was not admitted by the Tribunal is entirely false. Despite service of notice, the appellant never appeared nor engaged any counsel before the Tribunal. The records do not show that Page No.# 6/10 the counsel for the Insurer had ever appeared before the Tribunal as there is no such order of the Tribunal indicating that the Insurer had appeared and had asked for permission to file written statement or a petition under Section 170 of the Act. Even assuming but not admitting that the appellant-Insurer had tried to file their written statement and Section 170 application before the Tribunal, and the same was not admitted, there is nothing to show as to why steps had not been taken by the Insurer against such rejection. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the instant appeal filed by the Insurer is not maintainable in the eye of law and needs to be dismissed with costs. Learned counsel has relied on the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Shila Dutta and Others reported in (2011) 10 SCC 509 in support of his contentions. 12. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the authorities relied upon as well as the Trial Court Records. It is held in the case of Shila Dutta (Supra) that the scheme of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Chapters XI and XII proceeds on the basis that an insurer need not be impleaded as a party to the claim proceedings and it should only be issued a statutory notice under Section 149(2) of the Act. It was further held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that when the insurer is impleaded as a party respondent in a claim petition as contrasted from being merely a noticee under Section 149(2) of the Act its rights are significantly different. If the insurer is only a noticee, it can only raise such grounds as are permissible under the law in Section 149(2). But if he is a party respondent, the insurer can raise not only those grounds which are available under Section 149(2), but also all other grounds that are available to a person against whom a claim is made. It, therefore, Page No.# 7/10 follows that if a claimant impleads the insurer as a party respondent, then the respondent/insurer will be entitled to urge all contentions and grounds. Since the insurer was not impleaded as a party respondent, the insurer had to seek the permission of the Tribunal or from this Court under Section 170 of the Act to raise grounds other than those mentioned in Section 149(2) of the Act. 13. The learned Tribunal in the Judgment and Award dated 23.09.2021 has reproduced the notices issued to the appellant-Insurer and also the certificate issued by the Sub- Post Master, Circular Road, Sub-Post Office, Dimapur, Nagaland dated 30.11.2018, by which it was certified that the Registered Post Letters dated 09.07.2018 and 16.08.2018 were duly delivered on 10.07.2018 and 21.08.2018 respectively and had been duly acknowledged and received by the Division Office, Dimapur by putting their signature and official seal. Notices on two occasions were also issued to the Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. at Lakhimpur, Assam. To prove the service a certificate from the Sub-Post Master, Bihpuria SO, Lakhimpur was also produced wherein it was certified that the registered letter addressed to the Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Lakhimpur was delivered to the addressee on 24.08.2018. The records therefore reveal that the appellant/Insurer was duly served with notice of the claim petition but chose not to appear before the Tribunal and the case accordingly proceeded ex-parte. 14. There is nothing in the Trial Court Records to show that the appellant/Insurer had ever entered appearance through counsel and there is no indication in the order sheets that the written statement or the Page No.# 8/10 application under Section 170 of the Act had been filed by the appellant- Insurer. Hence, the claim that the Tribunal had rejected the written statement and the application under Section 170 of the Act is not factually correct. Hence, no permission was sought from or granted by the Tribunal under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act enabling the insurer to contest the claim on all grounds available to the owner or driver. 15. In the event that the appellant-Insurer was dissatisfied with the ex- parte proceedings and the ex-parte Judgment and Order dated 23.09.2021 passed in MAC Case 20/2018, the appellant-Insurer could have availed the remedy of filing a petition under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC, before the Tribunal for setting aside the ex-parte Judgment and Award. However, the same was also not done. 16. In view of the facts and circumstances as above, this Court is of the view that the Motor Vehicles Act does not require the claimants to implead the Insurer as a party respondent. The Insurer in the instant case was a noticee under Section 149(2) of the Act and the Tribunal had rightly issued notice to the appellant. And due service of the notice is also proved through documentary evidence. It is further proved from the records that the appellant-Insurer chose not to appear before the tribunal. The appellant had also not filed any application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC to set aside the ex-parte Judgment and Award. 17. In view of the law laid down in National Insurance Co.Ltd Vrs Nicolletta Rohtagi reported in 2002 (7) SCC 456, an Insurer cannot challenge the findings regarding negligence or the quantum of Page No.# 9/10 compensation in the absence of permission under Section 170 of the MV Act. Since the present appeal seeks to assail the award on grounds beyond the statutory defences available under Section 149 (2) of the MV Act 1988, the appeal is not maintainable to that extent. No grounds falling within Section 149 (2) has been demonstrated. The appeal is therefore liable to be dismissed. 18. The instant appeal is therefore dismissed as not maintainable and the impugned Judgment and Award dated 23.09.2021 in MAC Case 20/2018 is upheld. 19. It has been submitted during the hearing that the appellant had deposited 30% of the awarded amount, i.e., ₹19,49,364/- (Rupees Nineteen lakhs Forty-nine thousand Three hundred Sixty-four only), which has been withdrawn by the respondents-claimants. Accordingly, the Registry shall also allow the respondents-claimants to withdraw the statutory deposit of ₹25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-five thousand), which has been deposited by the appellants and the same shall be adjusted towards the payment of the balance awarded amount. The appellant-Insurer is also directed to deposit the balance awarded amount before the learned Tribunal after deducting ₹25,000/- within a period of 2 (two) months from today. 20. MAC Appeal is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Page No.# 10/10 Comparing Assistant