Failure to obtain leave under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicle Act renders an appeal not maintainable.

JUDGMENT :

M.S. Sonak, J.

1. Heard Mr. Amey Kakodkar, learned Counsel for the appellant. None for the respondents, though served.

2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company challenging the award made under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (said Act).

3. There is no dispute in this case that no leave was obtained under Section 170 of the said Act by the appellant/Insurance Company before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

4. 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 w/o. Prakash Ghurde and Ors. (2020) 2 Bom CR 465, this appeal will have to be dismissed as not maintainable.

5. Mr. Kakodkar, learned Counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company, however, pointed out that in Oriental Insurance Ltd. Vs. Sangita Devi and Ors., the Delhi High Court, relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Vs. Sudha Rani, Civil Appeal No. 8654/2013 decided on 24.09.2013 has held that once the Insurance Company is voluntarily impleaded as a party to the claim petition by the claimants, it can raise all defences, including the defences concerning the quantum of compensation. He submitted that despite best efforts he was not in a position to obtain the copy of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sudha Rani (supra).

6. He also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bajaj Alianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kamala Sen 2014 ACJ 2396, which, according to him, holds that where the insurance company is impleaded as a party respondent, it can raise all contentions that are available to resist the claim. He pointed out that this is what was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Shila Datta, (2011) 10 SCC 509.

7. Although the Division Bench of this Court in I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. case (supra), may have not referred to the decision of the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in Sangita Devi (supra) or the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that was referred to therein, the Division Bench, has considered the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nicolletta Rohtagi (2002) 7 SCC 456, United India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Bhushan Sachdev, (2002) 2 SCC 265, Shila Datta (supra) and Josephine James Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited, (2013) 16 SCC 711 and held that notwithstanding the reference made, the decisions in Nicolletta 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 said Act.

8. 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.

9. The appellant-Insurance Company has deposited only Rs. 25,000/- as a precondition for institution of this appeal. Now that the appeal is being disposed of the appellant will have to deposit the entire awarded amount together with interest and costs. The appellant is directed to do this within two months from today.

10. The claimants will be entitled to withdraw Rs. 25,000/- that is already deposited together with interest that may have accrued thereon. Further, upon deposit of the entire awarded amount, the claimants will be entitled to withdraw the same. The claimants will have to submit proper identification and bank details so that the Registry can directly transfer the amounts into the respective bank accounts of the claimants. Registry to ensure that necessary intimation is sent to the claimants.

11. This appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.