AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This is an appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (In short ''the Act'') against the award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on various grounds.
It appears that no application was moved under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to obtain permission to contest the case. The appellant''s counsel defends the appeal on the ground that since the owner had not appeared to cross examine, as required, no application has been moved under Section 170 of the Act.
Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant seems to be not sustainable. The provision contained in Section 170 of the Act is statutory and mandatory in nature. In case the appellant intend to contest the case, then the application under Section 170 of the Act should have been moved by applicant before the Tribunal. In absence of any permission granted to the appellant the appeal seems to be not maintainable as per the ratio laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in a case reported in 2003 (3) TAC 293 (SC); National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nicolletta Rohtagi and others.
Since no permission was obtained by the appellant under Section 170 of the Act before approaching this Court, the present F.A.F.O is not maintainable.
It is accordingly dismissed.
The amount, if any, deposited in this Court shall be remitted to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal concerned and the Tribunal may proceed in terms of the award to disburse the compensation.
(Appeal dismissed)