D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.959 of 2003 ORAL JUDGMENT: Heard both sides v. Nicolletta Rohtagi[1]
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 26 Aug 2010
- Bench
- D S R VARMA
Outcome
Dismissed
In the result, the appeal is dismissed, without
Provisions considered
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 s. 170
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, without costs.
Judgment
Heard both sides. 2. Aggrieved by the order and decree, dated 01.04.2002, passed by the District Judge-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nizamabad (for brevity “the Tribunal”), in O.P.No.470 of 1998, awarding a sum of Rs.7,00,0000/- towards compensation for the death of one Eleti Satyam Reddy, son of claimant No.1, husband of claimant No.2 and father of claimant Nos.3 to 5, in a road accident that occurred on 28.10.1997, the New India Assurance Company Limited has filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
It is brought to the notice of this Court, by both the learned counsel, that permission as contemplated under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’), is not obtained by the insurer before the Tribunal, as held by the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nicolletta Rohtagi[1], in which event the scope for the insurance company to agitate before this Court is limited only to the extent of Section 149 of the Act.
Hence, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
Operative part
In the result, the appeal is dismissed, without costs.
However, since the rate of interest awarded on the compensation by the Tribunal appears to be slightly on higher side, the same is reduced to 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the O.P. till the date of realization. _____________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 26th August 2010 [1] AIR 2002 SC 3350
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In the result, the appeal is dismissed, without
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s. 170.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 26 Aug 2010. The bench was D S R VARMA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.