AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.
1 This is insurer''s appeal challenging the impugned award on the ground that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive.
2 Admittedly, no permission was granted to the appellant under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This is not in dispute that in the . absence of the aforesaid permission, the appeal filed by the appellant on the ground of excessive quantum is not maintainable, however, the argument raised by the learned counsel is that an application under Section 170 of the Act was filed by the appellant on 7.12.2006 but the same was not decided by the Tribunal.
3 It is also not in dispute that the issues were reframed in this case on 21.6.2007 and no further issues were claimed by the appellant. In view of the fact that the issues were reframed after filing of application under Section 170 of the Act as aforesaid no such issue was claimed by the appellant before the Tribunal, this application filed under Section 170 of the Act was deemed to have been not pressed. Thus, I find no merit in this appeal. Appeal dismissed.