Bajaj Allianz General Insurance vs Imran Hussain & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 2155 Del

4
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                       +    MAC.APP. 978/2006


                                   Date of Decision: 19th May, 2009

%


      BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE ..... Appellant
                     Through : Mr. Pankaj Seth, Adv.

                       versus

      IMRAN HUSSAIN & ORS.         ..... Respondents
                    Through : Mr. Kanwal Chaudhary, Adv.



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 award of the learned

Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs.10,27,924/- has been

awarded to claimant/respondent No.1. The accident dated

29/30th July, 2005 resulted in the grievous injuries to

claimant/respondent No.1. The claimant suffered 75%

permanent disability. The disability is in the nature of

Traumatic Paraparesis, i.e., weakness on lower limb and the

claimant has no strength in lower limb even to stand or to

walk without any support. The claimant was working as

Constable in Delhi Home Guard and his loss of earning

capacity has been taken to be 100%.

2. The appellant has challenged the quantum of

compensation awarded to the claimant. However, there is no

permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is

well settled that without the permission of 170 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, the Insurance Company cannot challenge the

award of the learned Tribunal on quantum. Reference in this

regard is made in the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the cases of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nicolletta

Rohtagi, (2002) 7 SCC 456 and Shankarayya vs. United

India Insurance Co. Ltd., (1998) 3 SCC 140 where the

Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that in the absence

of defence as envisaged under Section 170 of the Motor

Vehicles Act being taken over by the insurance company, the

appeal filed by the insurance company cannot be

maintained.

3. Notwithstanding the bar of Section 170 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is

also just fair and reasonable.

4. For all the above reasons, the appeal as well as all the

pending application are dismissed.

5. The appellant has deposited the entire award amount

along with interest with the learned Tribunal in terms of the

order dated 4th December, 2006 out of which 75% of the

award amount has been released to respondent No.1.

6. The learned Tribunal is directed to release the

remaining award amount to claimant/respondent No.1.

7. Learned counsel for claimant submits that the interest

be also awarded for the period during which the appeal

remained pending. If the entire award amount has been

deposited along with interest with the learned Tribunal, the

claimant would not be entitled to any further interest.

8. Copy of this order be given 'Dasti' to learned counsel

for the parties under signatures of Court Master.

J.R. MIDHA, J MAY 19, 2009 mk