NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. SANTOSH UTTAM MADGAONKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal instituted by the Insurance Company, there is no dispute that no leave was obtained under Sec. 170 of the MV Act.

(2.) Therefore, following the law laid down by the Division Bench in I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., Amravati Vs. Surekha w/o. Prakash Ghurde and Ors. (2020) 2 Bom.CR 465, this appeal will have to be dismissed as not maintainable. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

(3.) In I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. case (supra), the Division Bench of this Court, after considering several decisions, including the decision in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nicolletta Rohtagi, (2002) 7 SCC 456, United India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Bhushan Sachdev, (2002) 2 SCC 265 United India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Shila Datta and Josephine James Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited (2013) 16 SCC 711 has held that notwithstanding the reference made, the decisions in Nicoletta Rohtagi (supra) and Josephine James (supra) hold good and based upon the same, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company questioning the quantum of the compensation would not be maintainable in the absence of permission under Sec. 170(b) of the said Act.