United India Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Master Ashish Wadhwa & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 2067 Del

40
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                     +     FAO No.218/2002

                                  Date of Decision: 15th May, 2009
%

      UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. ..... Appellant
                      Through: Mr. Anand Vardhan Sharma
                               and Mr. Vishnu Mehra,
                               Advocates.
                versus

      MASTER ASHISH WADHWA & ORS. ..... Respondents
                    Through: None.


CORAM :-
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

1.      Whether Reporters of Local papers may       YES
        be allowed to see the Judgment?

2.      To be referred to the Reporter or not?      YES

3.      Whether the judgment should be              YES
        reported in the Digest?


                         JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. The appellant has challenged the common award passed by

the learned Tribunal whereby three separate claim petitions were

decided.

2. The accident dated 6th April, 1993 resulted in the death of

Syam Sunder Wadhwa and his wife, Kamlesh Wadhwa and injuries

to their daughter baby Pooja Wadhwa who were travelling in the

car which was hit by a Tanker bearing No.DEL 3153. Three

separate claim petitions were filed before the learned Tribunal.

The learned Tribunal awarded Rs.4 lacs in respect of death of

Syam Sunder Wadha; Rs.3.5 lacs in respect of the death of

Kamlesh Wadhwa; and Rs.5.50 lacs in respect of injuries suffered

by baby Pooja Wadhwa.

3. The appellant has challenged the common award whereby

three claim petitions were decided. One single appeal is not

maintainable to challenge the award passed in three separate

claim petitions and, therefore, the appeal is not maintainable on

this ground.

4. The appellant has challenged the quantum of compensation

awarded in the aforesaid three claim petitions. The learned

counsel for the appellant admits that the appellant does not have

permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act from the

learned Tribunal. It is well settled that the Insurance Company

cannot challenge the quantum of compensation without

permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of National Insurance Co.

Ltd. vs. Nicolletta Rohtagi, (2002) 7 SCC 456 and

Shankarayya vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (1998) 3

SCC 140. This appeal is, therefore, not maintainable.

5. Notwithstanding the bar of Section 170 of the Motor

Vehicles Act as well as the non-maintainability of one appeal

against three separate claim petitions, the compensation awarded

by the learned Tribunal is just, fair and reasonable and, therefore,

no case is made out even on merits.

6. For all the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is dismissed.

J.R. MIDHA, J MAY 15, 2009 s.pal