ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. M SUJATHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil miscellaneous appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 16. 11. 1998 in O. P. No. 109 of 1996 on the file of the Motor accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Second additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

(2.) APPELLANT is Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. , represented by its Regional Manager, begumpet, Hyderabad and the respondent nos. 1 to 3 herein are the claimants in the above O. P. filed under section 166 of the motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity, 'the act') claiming Rs. 2,00,000 as compensation alleging that due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No. AAK 2548 the deceased, husband of the claimant No. 1; father of the claimant Nos. 2 and 3; and son of respondent no. 4 herein, died and the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said lorry and as the deceased was earning the estimated income of Rs. 1,500 per month, after deducting 1/3rd of his income, his annual contribution was taken as Rs. 12,000 and accordingly awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,71,000 along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum by order dated 16. 11. 1998. Aggrieved thereby, the insurance company filed this appeal contending that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased also and, therefore, the compensation amount ought to have been reduced by half. I am of the opinion that it is not open for the insurance company to question the quantum of compensation as admittedly there was no collusion in the claim made by the claimants and insurance company has not taken any permission to contest the petition under section 170 of the Act. The limited ground available for the insurance company is under section 149 (2) of the Act alone and the appeal filed by the insurance company is not maintainable in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in national Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nicolletta rohtagi, 2002 ACJ 1950 (SC ).

(3.) ACCORDINGLY, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.