THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No.1597 of 2004 Dated: 16-12-2010 Between: The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Com. Hyderabad. ………..Petitioner and Mohd. Sattal Khan and another. …………Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No. 1597 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This Appeal, at the instance of the insurance company, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the order dated 25.07.2003 passed by the Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases cum V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, in O.P. No.1813 of 1999, filed by the 1st respondent- claimant herein, claiming compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the cause of injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that occurred on 06.12.1999 at about 11.45 when he parked his auto rickshaw in front of Nafeez Manzil, a car bearing Regn. No.AP13C 6678 driven with high speed in a rash and negligent manner, first gave dash to a lady and then to the auto rickshaw of the claimant-2nd respondent, as a result of which, the 2nd respondent-claimant sustained fractures to his right leg, right hand, right foot, right occipital bone and injuries all over the body. 2. Before the Court below, the owner of the offending vehicle, who is R-2 herein, and the insurance company, which is the appellant herein, filed their respective counters denying all the averments made in the petition. 3. The Tribunal having held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car bearing Regn. No. AP 13 C 6678 belonging to the first respondent, fixed the liability against both the owner and insurer of the vehicle. As far as the claim of compensation is concerned, the Court below taking into consideration of evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and also the evidence of documents viz., Exs. A1 to A4, awarded total compensation of Rs.60,921/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit into Court. Aggrieved by the same, the insurance company filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the claimant and the owner of the vehicle. 4. The learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant- insurance company contended that the owner of the vehicle did not admit that the accident was caused due to negligence of the driver. He further contended that the Court below erroneously awarded a meager sum Rs. 60,921/- towards compensation and that the Tribunal has not considered the matter in proper perspective. Therefore, the appeal may be allowed setting aside the award passed by the Court below. 5. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent-claimant contended that the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation by considering the necessary oral and documentary evidence and it need not be interfered with by this Court. He further contended that the insurance company filed this appeal without obtaining necessary permission as required under Section 170 of the Act, 1988. In support of his contention, he relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nicolletta Rohtagi[1], wherein, it was held that the insurer having not obtained permission under Section 170 of 1988 Act, is not entitled to prefer any appeal to the High Court against the award given by the Tribunal on merits. Hence, the appeal may be dismissed. 6. Heard the learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant-insurance company and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent-claimant and perused the entire material made available on record. 7. As seen from the record, it is no doubt true that due to rash and negligent driving of the car bearing No. AP 13 C 6678 belonging to the first respondent, accident occurred and due to which, the 1st respondent-claimant sustained grievous injuries. As far as the claim of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal taking into consideration the permanent disability of the claimant and other aspects regarding sources of income etc. granted Rs.23,921/- towards medical expenditure, Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.20,000/- towards disability and Rs.1,000/- towards each of extra nourishment and transport to hospital. Therefore, in my considered view, the Tribunal granted just and reasonable compensation. However, as contended by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent-claimant, the appellant filed this appeal without obtaining necessary permission as required under Section 170 of the Act, 1988, hence in that view also, the appeal is not maintainable under the law. 8. Therefore, I see no reasons to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. However, as far as the rate of interest is concerned, the same is reduced from 9% per annum as granted by the Court below to 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 9. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date : 16.12.2010 Kvr [1] AIR 2002 SUPREME COURT 3350 = 2002 AIR SCW 3899