Judgment · High Court

Through: Mr. K.L. Nandwani, Advocate VETSUS LALITA DEVI & ORS Through: Nemo ""' Respondents -t; CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL ORDER 17.02.2011 By way of present appell, the appellant seeks to challenge the quantum of cornpensation awarded by the Clairns Tribunal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National fnsursnce Co. Ltd. Vs. Nicolletta Rohtagi' 2002 (7) SCC 456heId as under:- ",. ,.In Shankarayyav. United India Insurance co. Ltd., it was held that an Insurance Company when impleaded as a party by the Court can be perrnitted to contest the proceedings on merits only if the condition precedent rnentioned in Section 170 ate found to be satisfied and for that purpose the Insurance cornpany has to obtain an order in writing frorn the Tribunal and which should be a reasoned order by the Tribunal. Unless this procedure is MAC.APP. 136/2011 PLse I of 2 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. -7 followed, the Insurance Company cannot have a wider defence on merits than what is available to it by way of statutory defences.

In absence of the existence of the condition precedent rnentioned in Section I70, the Insurance Company was not entitled to file an appeal on merits questioning the quantum of compensation. " In view of the above law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, an appeal which seeks to challenge the quantum of compensation awarded by the Clairns Tribunal without the Insurance Company having sought and obtained the perrnission of the Claims Tribunal under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is not maintainable. Accordingly, the present appeal is not maintainable and is disrnissed. 'J It is stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that the scope and arnbit of Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is being reconsidered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In view of the above, liberty is granted to the appellant to have the appeal revived in case the Hon'ble Suprerne Court after reconsideration of the mafter is of the view that the appeal by the Insurdnce Company without the 2 Insurance Cornpany having obtained an order under Section 170 of the Act is rnaintainable. CM Nos.3248/2011 and 324912011 also stand disposed of accordingly. FEBRUARY I.7, 201.1 IIAC.APP. 136/2011 (-- w,-rJ REVA KHETRAPAL. J. Puse 2 of 2