THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1918 of 2003 and Cross Objections No.1918 of 2003 ORAL COMMON JUDGMENT: Heard both sides. 2. Since both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the Cross Objections arise out of the order and decree passed in the same O.P., they are heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. Aggrieved by the order and decree, dated 17.1.2003, in M.V.O.P.No.758 of 2001, passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada (for brevity “the Tribunal”), awarding a sum of Rs.1,95,000/- as against the claim of Rs.2,00,000/-, made by the claimants for the death of the deceased-Shaik Mohamood, who died in a motor accident that occurred on 11.9.1999 at Foreman Bungalow Railway Quarters, Wynchipet, Vijayawada, due to the rash and negligent driving of the part of the driver of the lorry, bearing No.AP 16V 7875, the present appeal has been filed by the insurer/Oriental Insurance Company Limited and cross objections have been preferred by respondent Nos.1 to 3/claimants. 4. The appellant is the insurer of the offending lorry, respondent Nos.1 to 3 are claimants and respondent Nos.4 and 5 are driver and owner, respectively, of the offending lorry. 5. When the matter came up for hearing, it is represented by the learned counsel for the respondents-claimants that no petition under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) is filed by the appellant-insurer in which event the claim of the insurance company in challenging the impugned order would be restricted to the extent of challenging the quantum of compensation only. Therefore, as held by the apex Court in NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. NICOLETTA ROHTAGI[1] the appeal is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-filing of the application under Section 170 of the Act. 6. Even on the merits also, the only contention raised by the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-insurer is that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is very high. 7. From the evidence on record, it could be seen that the deceased was aged about 50 years and working as Muta coolly. Hence his monthly income was estimated at Rs.3,000/- and basing on the same, after applying the multiplier ‘7’, and also after taking into consideration all other aspects, the Tribunal had rightly arrived to a total amount of Rs.1,95,000/- towards compensation. 8. In my considered view, the amount of compensation arrived at by the Tribunal is not irrational and hence the impugned order of the Tribunal does not call for any interference by this Court. Therefore, the civil miscellaneous appeal and the cross objections are liable to be dismissed. 9. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal and the cross objections are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 22.07.2010. Msr. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1918 of 2003 and Cross Objections No.1918 of 2003 22.07.2010 (Msr) [1] 2002 (6) ALT SC 43