Supreme Court – Daily Orders
National Insurance Company Ltd vs Gauri Gurudas Gaonkar on 19 March, 2026
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. ……………. OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 11439 of 2023)
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. .…APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
GAURI GURUDAS GAONKAR AND ORS. .…RESPONDENT(S)
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal has been preferred by the
Appellant/Insurance Company challenging the judgment dated
18.08.2022 (hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Judgment”)
passed in First Appeal No. 86 of 2016 by the High Court of
Bombay at Goa (hereinafter referred to as “the High Court”).
3. Brief facts are that one Gurudas Zipro Gaonkar, a pedestrian
aged 54 years, was hit by a WagonR car bearing registration No.
GA-06-D-8495, which was driven by Respondent No. 1 at high
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
KRITIKA TIWARI
Date: 2026.04.07
16:32:49 IST
Reason:
speed in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in the death of
Gurudas Zipro Gaonkar on the spot.
4. Aggrieved, his wife and children, being Petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3,
and 4, filed Claim Petition No. 107 of 2014 under Section 166 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the
1988 Act”) before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North
Goa, Mapusa (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), against
the Appellant/Insurance Company, the offending vehicle driver
being Respondent No. 5, and the offending vehicle owner being
Respondent No. 6.
5. The Tribunal, vide award dated 30.09.2015, allowed the claim
petition of the Respondents/claimants and assessed the total
compensation at Rs. 52,33,440/-, with simple interest thereon at
9% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition till the
final payment and their costs.
6. Aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal, the Appellant/Insurance
Company preferred First Appeal No. 86 of 2016 before the High
Court.
7. Vide Impugned Judgment dated 18.08.2022, the High Court
dismissed the appeal of the Appellant/Insurance Company as not
maintainable by relying upon the decision of the Division Bench
of the same High Court in I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General
Insurance Co. Ltd., Amravati vs. Surekha wd/o. Prakash
Ghurde and Ors., reported in (2020) 2 Bom CR 465.
8. Aggrieved by the Impugned Judgment, the Appellant/Insurance
Company approached this Court.
9. Learned counsel for the Appellant/Insurance Company
submitted that the High Court has wrongly relied upon the
judgment passed by the High Court as the same is bad in law
and contrary to the law laid down by this Court in United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Shila Datta & Ors., reported in [2011
ACJ 2729], wherein the scope of application of Section 170 of the
1988 Act was clarified.
10. In response, learned counsel for the Respondents/claimants
supported the view laid down by the High Court.
11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and pursued the relevant
material on record.
12. On the legal issue regarding the right of the Insurance Company
to contest the claim under the 1988 Act on various grounds, the
law is well-settled. The issue has categorically been dealt with by
a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Shila Datta’s case (supra).
The same is extracted below:
“2. On the said reference made, the following questions arise for
our consideration, in regard to the position of an insurer under
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“the Act”, for short):
(i) Whether the insurer can contest a motor accident claim on
merits, in particular, in regard to the quantum, in addition to the
grounds mentioned in Section 149(2) of the Act for avoiding
liability under the policy of insurance?
xxx
Re : Point (i) : The position in cases where the claimants
implead the insurer as a respondent in the claim petition
13. The scheme of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as contained
in Chapters XI (Insurance of Motor Vehicles against Third-party
Risks) and XII (Claims Tribunals) 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 so that it can be made liable to
pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and also resist
the claim on any one of the grounds mentioned in clauses (a)
and (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 149. Sub-sections (1), (2)
and (7) of Section 149 clearly refer to the insurer being merely a
noticee and not a party. Similarly, Sections 158(6), 166(4),
168(1) and 170 clearly provide for and contemplate the insurer
being merely a noticee for the purposes mentioned in the Act
and not being a party-respondent. Section 170 specifically
refers to impleading of insurer as a party to the claim
proceedings. 14. When an insurer is impleaded as a party-
respondent to the claim petition, as contrasted from merely
being 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 of those grounds as are permissible in law under
Section 149(2). But if he is a party-respondent, it 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, follows that if a claimant
impleads the insurer as a party-respondent, for whatever
reason, then as such respondent, the insurer will be entitled to
urge all contentions and grounds which may be available to it.
15. The Act does not require the claimants to implead the
insurer as a party-respondent. But if the claimants choose to
implead the insurer as a party, not being a noticee under
Section 149(2), the insurer can urge all grounds and not
necessarily the limited grounds mentioned in Section 149(2) of
the Act. If the insurer is already a respondent (having been
impleaded as a party respondent), it need not seek the
permission of the Tribunal under Section 170 of the Act to raise
grounds other than those mentioned in Section 149(2) of the Act.
xxx
19. Therefore, where the insurer is a party-respondent, either
on account of being impleaded as a party by the Tribunal under
Section 170 or being impleaded as a party-respondent by the
claimants in the claim petition voluntarily, it will be entitled to
contest the matter by raising all grounds, without being
restricted to the grounds available under Section 149(2) of the
Act. The claim petition is maintainable against the owner and
driver without impleading the insurer as a party.”
(emphasis supplied)
13. This Court has also reiterated the same view in the recent case of
National Insurance Company Ltd. versus Master Frewin
Seby De Melo & Ors., arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 715 of
2023.
14. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, the
Insurance Company, when impleaded as a respondent in the
claim petition, has the right to contest the claim on all available
grounds, without any restriction to grounds available under
Section 149(2) of the 1988 Act. The law on the present legal issue
has already been settled by this Court, and thus, the same was
required to be followed. The error was perpetuated by the High
Court by not allowing the Appellant/Insurance Company to
address the court on the issue of quantum of compensation.
15. For the reasons mentioned above, the present appeal is allowed.
The Impugned Judgment passed by the High Court is set aside,
and the matter is remitted back to the High Court for
consideration on the issue of quantum of compensation. Needless
to mention that both parties will be given due opportunity of
hearing.
16. Considering the fact that the accident took place more than 10
years ago, the High Court is requested to expedite the hearing of
the appeal. It is also clarified that the amount of compensation
already released to the claimants shall remain subject to the final
outcome of the appeal by the High Court.
17. The petition is accordingly disposed of.
18. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
………………………., J.
(RAJESH BINDAL)
………………………., J.
(VIJAY BISHNOI)
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 19, 2026.
ITEM NO.29 COURT NO.15 SECTION III
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.11439/2023
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
GAURI GURUDAS GAONKAR & ORS. Respondent(s)
Date : 19-03-2026 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOIFor Appellant(s) :
Mr. Abhishek Kumar Gola, Adv.
Mr. Anshul Mehral, Adv.
Mr. Arun Kumar Nagar, Adv.
Mr. Manohar Naagar, Adv.
Ms. Rajshree Singh, Adv.
Mr. Sudhir Naagar, AOR
For Respondent(s) :
Mr. Salvador Santosh Rebello, AOR
Mr. Servesh Malyankar, Adv.
Mr. Raghav Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Moulishree Pathak, Adv.
Mr. Jaskirat Pal Singh, Adv.UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E RLeave granted.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of in terms of
the signed order.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(KRITIKA TIWARI) (MANOJ KUMAR)
SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT COURT MASTER (NSH)
(signed order is placed on file)