MAC .APP.496/2007 Page 1 of 3 25 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + MAC.APP. 496/2007 Date of Decision: 9th April, 2009 % ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD ..... Appellant Through : Mr. Pankaj Seth, Adv. versus SHAKUNTALA DEVI & ORS ..... Respondents Through : None. 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.8,39,200/- has been awarded to claimants/respondents No.1 to 4. 2. The accident dated 21st February, 2006 resulted in the death of Dilbar Singh. The deceased was aged 30 years at the time of the accident and was survived by his widow aged 26 years, two daughters aged 6 years and 6 months and father aged 76 years who filed the claim petition before the learned Tribunal. The deceased was working as a driver with M/s Bhushan Steel drawing a salary of Rs.8,000/- per month. However, since documentary evidence of income was not MAC .APP.496/2007 Page 2 of 3 placed on record, the learned Tribunal considered the minimum wages of Rs.3,695/- (rounded off as Rs.3,700/-) of a skilled worker and by taking the future prospects, the income of the deceased was taken at Rs.5,500/- per month. 1/3rd was deducted by the learned Tribunal towards expenses of the deceased and multiplier of 18 was applied to compute the loss of dependency at Rs.7,99,200/-. Rs.10,000/- was awarded towards funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of love and affection. The total compensation awarded is Rs.8,39,200/-. 3. The appellant has challenged the impugned award on quantum of compensation awarded. The ground for challenge is that future prospects should not have been taken into consideration and the lower multiplier should have been applied by the learned Tribunal. 4. The appellant had not taken the permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the learned Tribunal and, therefore, this appeal is not maintainable in respect of the challenge to the quantum of compensation. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgments of the Apex 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 MAC .APP.496/2007 Page 3 of 3 appeal filed by the insurance company cannot be maintained. 5. Notwithstanding that there is no permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, I have examined the merits of the case and do not find any substance. There is no infirmity in the computation of the future prospects by the learned Tribunal following the judgment of the Apex Court in Susamma Thomas’s case and the application of multiplier according to the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. 6. For all these reasons, the appeal is dismissed. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the entire award amount has been deposited by the appellant with the learned Tribunal which is admitted by claimants/ respondents No.1 to 4 in para 3 of CM No.4329/2008. 8. The Registry is directed to refund the statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- to the appellant within three weeks. 9. Copy of this order be given ‘Dasti’ to learned counsel for the appellant under signatures of Court Master. Copy of this order be also sent to the Claimants/Respondents No.1 to 4. CM No.11122/2007 Dismissed. J.R. MIDHA, J APRIL 09, 2009 aj