Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
M.S.Sonak, J.
Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Sanjay Shridhar Naik – Respondent
First Appeal No. 143 of 2017
Decided On : 11-08-2022
Vaman Kurtikar, Advocate, Valencia Fernandes, Advocate
Failure to obtain leave under Sec. 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can lead to the dismissal of an appeal on the issue of quantum of compensation.
Headnote:
Sec. 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Quantum of Compensation - Dismissal of Appeal
Fact of the Case:
The insurance company did not obtain leave under Sec. 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The appeal was mainly on the issue of quantum of compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The appeal was dismissed as not maintainable in law, following the law 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.
Issues: Failure to obtain leave under Sec. 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the issue of quantum of compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The appeal was dismissed as not maintainable due to the failure to obtain leave under Sec. 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed as not maintainable, and the Claimants were entitled to withdraw the deposited amount with interest after six weeks.
JUDGMENT
M.S.SONAK, J. - Heard Mr. Kurtikar for the Appellant and Ms. V. Fernandes for Respondents No.1(a), 1(b) and 1(c) (Claimants).
2. In so far as Respondent No.2 is concerned, the matter stands dismissed for failure to take steps. Irrespective of such dismissal, it is now pointed out that in this case, the insurance company had not obtained any leave under Sec. 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. This appeal is mainly on the issue of quantum of compensation.
3. Therefore, by following the law 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.
4. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as not maintainable in law.
5. Mr. Kurtikar submits that the awarded amount has already been deposited in this Court. Now that this appeal is dismissed, the Claimants will be entitled to withdraw this deposited amount together with interest that shall have accrued on this amount, after six weeks from today. Such withdrawal will, undoubtedly, be subject to any other orders restraining such withdrawal, in the meanwhile.
6. The Claimants, at the time of withdrawal, will have to submit identity documents and bank details so that the Registry can directly transfer the amounts into their bank accounts.
7. This appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, without any order for costs.
8. Misc. Civil Application No.1509/2022 (f) does not survive and the same is disposed of.
