Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, GOA BENCH
M.S. SONAK, J.
The United India Insurance Company Limited – Appellant
Versus
Gopiki Ramdas Gaude @ Gawade W/o Late Ramdas Gaude @ Gawade – Respondent
First Appeal No. 33 of 2018
Decided On : 11-03-2022
Motor Vehicles Act - Leave under Section 170 - Dismissal of Appeal for Lack of Maintainability
Fact of the Case:
The appellant did not obtain leave under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The appeal was dismissed as not maintainable based on the law laid down by the Division Bench of the Court in a previous case.
Issues: Lack of leave under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on previous decisions to hold 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 granted liberty to institute any other proceedings if maintainable in law. The claimants were granted liberty to withdraw the amount deposited in the Court.
JUDGMENT :
M.S. SONAK, J.
1. Heard Mr. Pavithran for appellant and Mr. Milton Marshall for respondents no. 1 and 2.
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 W/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. Respondents no. 1 and 2 - claimants are granted liberty to withdraw the amount deposited in this Court together with interest if any that may have accrued thereon after four weeks from today by furnishing proper identification and bank details. The amounts will have to be transferred into the bank accounts of the claimants directly. This is, no doubt, subject to any other orders restraining the withdrawal of such amounts in the meanwhile.
6. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
