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) 275

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, GOA BENCH
M.S. SONAK, J.
HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Shri Arakshita Maharana alias Arakshita Moharana S/o Arjuna Maharana – Respondent
First Appeal No. 81 of 2017, Misc. Civil Application No. 2326 of 2018
Decided On : 10-03-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Vaman Ganesh Kurtikar.

The 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:

Motor Vehicles Act - Permission under Section 170(b) - Dismissal of appeal for lack of permission

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 followed the law laid down by the Division Bench and dismissed the appeal as not maintainable due to the lack of permission under Section 170(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Issues: Lack of permission under Section 170(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, maintainability of the appeal, clarity on the awarded amount deposition

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Division Bench's decision and held that 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.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, but the appellant-Insurance Company was not precluded from instituting any other proceedings if maintainable in law. The awarded amount was to be transferred to the bank account of the claimants directly, subject to any other orders restraining the withdrawal of such deposit.

JUDGMENT :

M.S. SONAK, J.

1. Mr. Kurtikar appears for the appellant.

2. In this case, it is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the appellant 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 Others, (2020) 2 Bom. C.R. 465, this appeal will have to be dismissed as not maintainable.

3. In I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. case (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. There is no clarity in this matter as to whether the entire awarded amount was deposited before this Court or before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. However, if the amount has been been deposited, then, the Respondents-Claimants will be entitled to withdraw the same from the appropriate Court by furnishing proper identification and furnishing the bank details.

6. The amounts will have to be transferred into the bank account of the claimants directly together with interest, if any that might have accrued thereon. This is, no doubt, subject to any other orders restraining the 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