WILSON Vs. LALITHA BAI AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been jointly filed by the insurer and the owner in the year 1995. Subsequently, it was held by the Apex Court in the decision reported in Chinnama George v. N.K. Raju, 2000 ACJ 777 (SC), that, "appeal would be maintainable by the driver or the owner and not by the insurer and thus, a joint appeal when filed could be maintainable by the driver or the owner". In the light of the pronouncement, C.M.P. No. 928 of 2003 was filed by both the appellants together to strike off the appellant No. 1 in the appeal, viz., New India Assurance Co. Ltd. This petition was allowed on 14.2.2003. The driver was also deleted from the party array as per order dated 14.2.2003 in C.M.P. No. 443 of 2003.

(2.) Now the appeal is by owner alone. The only contention of the insured-owner is that multiplier adopted by the Tribunal below is on a higher side at 23. It can at the best be only at 17 or 18. Therefore, the quantum of the compensation awarded is too high.

(3.) An appeal is provided under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It can only be by a person aggrieved by an award passed by Claims Tribunal. The Supreme Court in the decision reported in Narendra Kumar v. Yarenissa, 1998 ACJ 244 (SC), has held as follows: