IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU M.A.C.M.A.NO.1567 OF 2010 Between : The United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Rep.by its Manager. ....PETITIONER A N D Ponnaganti Mangamma and others. …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU M.A.C.M.A.NO.1567 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: Heard both sides. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 24.11.2009 in O.P.No.42 of 2008 on the file of II Additional District Judge-cum-Chairman Motor Accidents-Claims Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, whereunder and whereby petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, was allowed. 2. The appeal itself is being taken up for disposal in view of the fact that the Tribunal adopted the wrong multiplier in assessing the compensation. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant / insurance company contended that as per the decision of SARALA VARMA AND OTHERS V DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER[1] the trial Court applied the multiplier. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 5 vehemently contended that the appellant has not obtained any permission under Section 170 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “ the Act”) in the trial Court, therefore, it cannot file an appeal questioning the quantum and hence, the appeal itself is not maintainable under law. 5. No doubt, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, ordinarily the Insurance Company cannot prefer an appeal unless the appellant has taken permission from the Tribunal under Section 170 of the Act. Under Section 170 of the Act, the insurance company when impleaded as a party by the Court can be permitted to contest the proceedings on merits only if the condition precedent mentioned in the section are found to be satisfied and for that purpose the insurance company has to obtain in writing from the Tribunal and which should be reasoned order by the Tribunal. Unless that procedure is followed the insurance company cannot have a wider defence on merits that what is available to it by way of statutory defence. Admittedly, such permission was not obtained from the Tribunal. The defenses available to the Insurance Company are enumerated under Section 147 of the Act. The Insurance Company is questioning the quantum of the liability on the ground that the trial Court adopted the wrong multiplier ‘15’ considering the age of the deceased as 44 and determined the compensation. There cannot be any dispute that the multiplier as mentioned in the second schedule would be applicable when the application is filed under Section 163-A of the Act. But in this case, the application seeking compensation is filed under Section 166 of the Act. Therefore, suitable multiplier considering the age of the deceased as laid down in the above decision has to be taken into consideration. If that is taken into consideration, the suitable multiplier considering the age of the deceased as ‘14’, the Tribunal applied wrong multiplier ‘15’. It is an inadvertent mistake apparent on the face of the record so as to correct the same when it is brought to the notice of this Court. Therefore, judgment under challenge has to be modified accordingly and the compensation is to be awarded by applying the correct multiplier as ‘14’. 6. The contribution of the deceased to the family was taken as Rs.48,000/- per annum. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for a compensation of Rs.48000 x 14 =6,72,000/- towards loss of income. The other statutory compensation was awarded to a tune of Rs.27,000/- by Tribunal. But according to the SARALA VARMA’S CASE ( 1 supra) , they are entitled to a compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards other statutory benefits. Therefore, in all the petitioners are entitled to a total sum of Rs.6,92,000/-. 7. Petitioner No.1 is entitled for Rs.2,32,000/- towards her share, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are each entitled for Rs.1,60,000/- and petitioner Nos.4 and 5 are each entitled for Rs.70,000/-. 8. Therefore, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU. J OCTOBER 29, 2010. YVL [1] 2009 ACJ 1298