NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. TARSEM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arising out of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, jammu's award dated 23rd of December, 2005 awarding an amount of Rs. 13,03,632/-along with interest @ 6% per annum for the death of one Kamal Raina who had died in a motor vehicular accident near K. C. Door, muthi, Jammu, to the widow, son, daughter and father of the deceased, has been filed by National Insurance Company Limited questioning only the quantum of compensation on the ground that neither the multiplier had been appropriately fixed nor the income rightly determined.

(2.) MS. Rashmi Bajaj appearing for the claimants raises a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the appeal saying that in the absence of requisite permission having been obtained by the Insurance company under Section 170 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988, during the trial of the claim petition, the appellant Company cannot maintain its appeal. She refers to shankarayya v. United Insurance Co. Ltd. , reported as AIR 1998 SC 2968, National insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nicolletta Rohtagi, reported as AIR 2002 SC 3350 and National insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chander Jota, reported as 2007 (2) JKJ 481 : (AIR 2007 J and K 79 ).

(3.) MR. Sunil Malhotra, learned counsel for the appellant, while conceding that no permission had been obtained by the company from the Tribunal under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, to contest the claim on grounds other than those available to an insurer under Section 149 (2) of the act, submits that award, which, on the face of it, has been made after accepting a multiplier which was far excess to the prescribed multiplier, would be liable to be set aside regardless of Company's omission to seek permission to contest the claimants' claim on grounds other than those mentioned in section 149 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned counsel further submits that in similar facts, the Supreme Court had fixed a lesser multiplier and the Tribunal has erred in adopting 11 as the multiplier.