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

2023 Supreme(Bom) 1021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT GOA
M. S. Sonak, J.
Cholamandalam – Appellant
Versus
Devidas Zalmi & Ors. – Respondents
Stamp Number (Main) No. 3192 of 2017, Stamp Number (Application) No. 3194 of 2017
Decided On : 19-01-2023

Advocates appeared:
Gauri Borkar, Advocate

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:

Insurance - Motor Vehicles Act - Quantum of Compensation - 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(b) of the M.V. Act before the Tribunal. The appeal was on the issue of quantum of compensation.

Finding of the Court:

The appeal was dismissed as not maintainable, following the law laid down by the Division Bench of the Court in a previous case. The Division Bench 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.

Issues: Lack of permission under Section 170(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act for the appeal on quantum of compensation

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the law laid down in previous cases, including National Insurance Company Limited vs. Nicolletta Rohtagi and Josephine James vs. United India Insurance Company Limited, 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, and there was no order for costs. Civil Applications, if any, were disposed of.

JUDGMENT

M. S. Sonak, J. - Heard Ms Gauri Borkar for the appellant.

2. Ms Borkar, fairly states that in this case no leave under Section 170(b) of the M.V. Act was obtained by the insurance company before the Tribunal. The appeal, is on the issue of quantum of compensation.

3. Therefore, 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.

4. 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.

5. Accordingly, this appeal is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order for costs.

6. Civil Applications, if any, will 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