AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. S. Sonak, J
Heard Ms Gauri Borkar for the appellant.
Ms Borkar, fairly states that in this case no leave under Section 170(b) of the M.V. Act was obtained by the insurance company before the Tribunal. The appeal, is on the issue of quantum of compensation.
Therefore, following the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., Amravati vs. Surekha w/o. Prakash Ghurde and ors. (2020) 2 Bom CR 465, this appeal will have to be dismissed as not maintainable.
In I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. case (supra), the Division Bench of this Court, after considering several decisions, including the decision in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Nicolletta Rohtagi, (2002) 7 SCC 456; United India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Bhushan Sachdev, (2002) 2 SCC 265, United India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Shila Datta, (2011) 10 SCC 509 and Josephine James vs. United India Insurance Company Limited (2013) 16 SCC 711 has held that notwithstanding the reference made, the decisions in Nicoletta Rohtagi (supra) and Josephine James (supra) hold good and based upon the same, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company questioning the quantum of compensation, would not be maintainable in the absence of permission under Section 170(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Accordingly, this appeal is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order for costs.
Civil Applications, if any, will not survive and the same are disposed of.