AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sr.. No.,Description of documents,Exh.
1,Deposition in form of Affidavit of Lalitaben Maheshbhai,17
Sr. No.,Description of documents,Exh.
1,Salary slip of the deceased M.P. Makwan,19
2,"Statement of expenditure of treatment and medicine of Rs.37,588.33/Â",20
3,Claimant’s FIR,24
4,Panch nama of scene of accident,25
5,Policy issued by the Insurance Company,26
6,RC book of the Vehicle bearing Registration No.GJ 1 FF6567,27
7,PM Note of the deceased,28
8,Salary slip of the deceased,29
9,School leaving certificate of the deceased,30
Learned advocate for the respondent has argued on one another ground that the permission under Section 170 of the MV Act is not granted by the,,
tribunal to the Insurance Company.,,
This Court has gone through the record of the learned Tribunal and also the Record and proceedings handed over to the learned Advocates for,,
both the side and to see as to whether the application under Section 170 of the MV Act is filed before the tribunal by the Insurance Company or not.,,
On perusing the record, both the learned advocates, specially, learned advocate for the Insurance Company are not able to point out that any",,
application under Section 170 of the MV Act is filed and permission is granted by the learned Tribunal to the Insurance Company to contest the claim,,
on or any of the grounds that are available to the person against whom that claim has been made.,,
Learned advocate for the respondent has stated that the judgment reported in (2013) 16 SCC 711 in case of Josphine James vs United India,,
Insurance Co. Ltd. and another, the Honourable Supreme Court has held as under :",,
“21. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the Insurance Company is not entitled to file appeal questioning the quantum of compensation awarded in",,
favour of the appellant for the reasons stated supra. In the absence of the same, the Insurance Company had only limited defence to contest in the",,
proceedings as provided under Section 149 (2) of the M.V. Act. Therefore, the impugned judgment passed by the High Court on 13.1.2012 reducing",,
the compensation to 4,20,000/Â under the heading of loss of dependency by deducting 50% from the monthly income of the deceased of Rs. 5,000/Â‐",,
and applying 14 multiplier, is factually and legally incorrect. The High Court has erroneously arrived at this amount by applying the principle of law laid",,
down in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation instead of applying the principle laid down in Baby Radhika Gupta’s case (supra) regarding,,
the multiplier applied to the fact situation and also contrary to the law applicable regarding the maintainability of appeal of the Insurance Company on,,
the question of quantum of compensation in the absence of permission to be obtained by it from the Tribunal under Section 170 (b) of the M.V. Act.,,
In view of the aforesaid reason, the High Court should not have allowed the appeal of the Insurance Company as it has got limited defence as",,
provided under section 149(2) of the M.V. Act. Therefore, the impugned judgment and award is vitiated in law and hence, is liable to be set aside by",,
allowing the appeal of the appellant.â€,,
The contention as regards to contest the case as per the statutory provision under Section 149(2) is not available in absence of permission granted,,
to the Insurance Company under Section 170 of the MV Act. Hence, it is to be concluded that the appellant has no right to file the appeal.",,
The learned advocate for the appellant has not contested this petition on the ground of quantum of compensation paid to the claimant. Hence the,,
issue is not required to be dealt with.,,
Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the provision applicable to decide this appeal, the ratio laid down by the Honourable Supreme",,
Court and by this Court in above referred judgments, this Court is of the view that the appeal is required to be dismissed. The Appeal accordingly",,
stands dismissed.,,
The appellant/Insurance Company will bear the costs of the appeal as well as the cost of the respondent/claimants.,,
R & P be sent back forthwith.,,