JUDGMENT

V. Gopala Gowda, J.

This civil appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 13.01.2012 passed by the High Court of Delhi in MAC Appeal No. 433 of 2005 by allowing the appeal of the respondent herein and reducing the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (in short ‘the Tribunal’) in suit No. 778 of 2003 urging various facts and legal contentions.

2. The appellant widow is the mother of the deceased who filed claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation on account of the death of her son who was aged about 21 years, in a car accident which occurred on 12.06.1998. The car (bearing registration No. DL 2C F 3431), which he was driving from Jaipur to Delhi, was hit by a truck (bearing registration No. RJ 14 G 7596), which was owned by respondent No.2. and insured with respondent No.1.

3. The claim petition was filed by the appellant before the Tribunal claiming compensation from the respondent for the death of her son caused by the accident. The claim was contested by the respondents. Five witnesses were examined including the appellant herein who produced documentary evidence in justification of her claim. The Tribunal accepted the claim of the appellant and awarded compensation of Rs. 9,00,000/- towards the loss of dependency of the appellant which was determined by the Tribunal by applying the multiplier of 15 to the multiplicand which was arrived at by taking two-third of the monthly salary of the deceased and multiplying the amount by 12 months. Under the conventional heads, the Tribunal also awarded Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of filial affection of the mother. It has further awarded Rs. 3,42,000/- in lump sum towards repair of the appellant’s car which met with the accident. In total, a sum of Rs. 13,07,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal as compensation for the death of her son and the damage caused to her car which met with a roadside accident, with an interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment.

4. The said judgment and award of the Tribunal was challenged by the Insurance Company without obtaining permission from the Tribunal under Section 170 (b) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (in short ‘the M.V. Act’) urging various legal contentions questioning the correctness of the quantum of compensation awarded in favour of the appellant.

5. The learned Judge of the High Court in the appeal filed under Section 173 of the M.V. Act, 1988, by the Insurance Company, reduced the compensation from Rs. 9,00,000/- to Rs. 6,75,000/- which was arrived at by the following calculation: (Rs. 3750 x 12 x 15) while affirming the rest of the award. The main objection of the appellant was the maintainability of the appeal by the Insurance Company on the ground that it is not open to the Insurance Company to challenge the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in favour of the appellant. The High Court, by placing reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. vs. Bhushan Sachdeva & Ors, (2002) 2 SCC 265 has held that the words ‘failed to contest’ in Section 170 (b) of the MV Act must mean failed to file an appeal since appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings. The court also noted that the insured has not filed an appeal and therefore, permitted the Insurance Company to file an appeal for reduction of quantum of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal in favour of the appellant. On the basis of such statement, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was reduced by allowing the appeal.

6. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court, the appellant filed Review Petition No. 80 of 2007 in which she has raised the objection on the maintainability of the appeal filed by the Insurance Company for reduction of the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that it is not