Advocates:
['ADV A R S NETRAVALKAR', 'ADV PALYEKAR VINITA VISHRAM', '', 'ADV KAMAT GHANEKAR TANVI', 'ADV SHAILESH REDKAR']

204-FA-129-2015.DOC

Niti

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

FIRST APPEAL NO.129/2015

National Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Panaji Divisional Office II,

2^nd Floor, Souza Towers,

Near Municipal Garden,

S/4-5, Dr. Domingos Souza Road,

Panaji, Goa.

… Appellant

Versus

1. Master Frewin Seby De Melo,

Son of late Snatana da Melo,

aged 10 years, r/o. G3,

Mevilton Enclave, Colmorod,

Navelim Road, Margao Goa,

represented by Guardian

Shri Armando Mascarenhas,

aged 68 years, retired,

R/o. E-193, near T.B. Hospital,

St. Inez, P.O. Caranzalem, Goa.

2. Shri Franco Augustinho Rodrigues,

r/o. H.No.A1, Dongorim,

Navelim, Salcete, Goa.

3. Smt. Fatima de Mello,

r/o. G3, Mevilton Enclave,

Colmorod, Navelim Road,

Margao Goa.

… Respondents

Mr. A.R.S. Netravalkar, Advocate for the Appellant.

Mr. Sudin Usgaonkar, Senior Advocate with Ms. Vinita V.

Palyekar, Advocates for Respondent No.1.

Mr. Shailesh Redkar, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

Page 1 of 8

1

st July 2022

204-FA-129-2015.DOC

CORAM :

M. S. SONAK, J.

DATE :

1^st JULY 2022

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1.

Heard Mr. A.R.S. Netravalkar for the Appellant, Mr. Sudin

Usgaonkar, learned Senior Advocate with Ms. Vinita Palyekar,

learned Advocate for respondent no.1, and Mr. Shailesh Redkar

learned Advocate for respondent no.2.

2.

The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award

dated 03.01.2015 as corrected by the order dated 03.03.2015

made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Claim Petition

No.158/2011. Accordingly, the Insurance Company institutes

this appeal, and the challenge is entirely on the quantum of

compensation.

3.

On 29.04.2022, Mr. Netravalkar pointed out that the

Insurance Company applied Section 170 of the Motor Vehicle

Act at Exhibit 64. However, the Tribunal did not dispose of such

an application before making the impugned award.

4.

Therefore, by order dated 29.04.2022 made in this appeal,

the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for the limited purpose

Page 2 of 8

1

st July 2022

204-FA-129-2015.DOC

of deciding the application at Exhibit 64 and remitting the

findings to this Court.

5.

Accordingly, the Tribunal, by order dated 13.06.2022, has

considered and dismissed the application at Exhibit 64.

6.

Mr. Netravalkar was heard on the legality and merits of the

order dated 13.06.2022, even without any formal amendment.

He submitted that the Tribunal has only focused on the aspect of

collusion, but failed to appreciate that in this case, the owner and

driver failed to contest the proceedings. He submitted that mere

filing of the written statement or appearing on some occasions

does not amount to contesting the proceedings. He submitted

that in such circumstances, the Tribunal should have allowed the

application under Section 170 of the MV Act.

7.

Mr. Netravalkar, without prejudice to the above, relied on

United Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Shila Datta & Ors.

1 and

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Bhushan Sachdeva &

Ors.

2 to submit that even in the absence of leave under Section

170 of the MV Act, the Insurance Companies can maintain the

appeal on the issue of quantum of compensation.

1 2011 ACJ 2729

2 2002 ACJ 333

Page 3 of 8

1

st July 2022

204-FA-129-2015.DOC

8.

Mr. Usgaonkar, learned Senior Advocate for respondent

no.1, relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court

in I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., Amravati

V/s. Surekha W/o. Prakash Ghurde & Ors.

3 to submit that no

appeal at the behest of the Insurance Company would be

maintainable on the quantum of compensation in the absence of

leave under Section 170 of the MV Act. He pointed out that the

Division Bench considered the decisions now relied upon by Mr.

Netravalkar, and it was held that the appeal by the Insurance

Company questioning the quantum of the compensation would

not be maintainable in the absence of permission under Section

170(b) of the MV Act.

9.

On considering Mr. Netravalkar's first contention about

the error in the Tribunal's order dated 13.06.2022, I find that

there is no merit in