SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Bom) 101

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
M.S. SONAK, J.
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, through its Manager,
– Appellant
Versus
Smt Assencia Fernandes, W/o late Gabriel Peter Fernandes and Others – Respondents
First Appeal No.118 of 2017
Decided on : 01-04-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Clayton Fonseca, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. V. Kurtikar, Advocate

The central legal point established in the judgment is that an appeal questioning the quantum of compensation would not be maintainable in the absence of permission under Section 170(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Headnote:

Section 170 - Motor Vehicles Act - The court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable due to the absence of permission under Section 170(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, based on the law laid down in I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Surekha wd/o. Prakash Ghurde and others.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant did not obtain leave under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable based on the absence of permission under Section 170(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Issues: The main issue was the absence of permission under Section 170(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which rendered the appeal not maintainable.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the law laid down in I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Surekha wd/o. Prakash Ghurde and others, which held that the appeal would not be maintainable in the absence of permission under Section 170(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, but the appellant-Insurance Company was granted leave to institute any other proceedings if maintainable in law. The awarded amount was deposited in the Court, and the claimants were granted leave to withdraw the balance 50% together with interest, subject to proper identification and bank details.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant does not dispute that no leave was obtained under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Therefore, by 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 wd/o. Prakash Ghurde and ors. (2020) 2 Bom CR 465, this appeal will have to be dismissed as not maintainable.

3. In I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. (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.

4. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. However, dismissal of this appeal will not come in the way of the appellant-Insurance Company from instituting any other proceedings, if maintainable in law.

5. The appellant-insurance company has deposited the awarded amount in this Court out of which the claimants have withdrawn 50%. Leave is now granted to the claimants to withdraw the balance 50% together with interest if any that may have accrued on the said amount after six weeks from today.

6. The claimants will have to furnish proper identification and bank details so that the Registry can transfer this amount directly into the bank account of the claimants. This is no doubt subject to any other orders restraining withdrawal of such deposit, in the meanwhile.

7. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

8. Misc. Civil Applications, if any, do not survive and the same are disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top