FAO No.3265 of 2009(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.3265 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 27.7.2009. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. .....Appellant Versus Satyanarayan and others ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. P.M. Goyal, Advocate for the appellant. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the award dated 14.1.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul. The only point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant in this case is with regard to the quantum of compensation granted to the respondent-claimant. It is well settled that the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is maintainable only on the ground of violation of Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and on other grounds it will be maintainable only when the appellant-Insurance Company has obtained permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Admittedly, in this case, no such permission was granted by the Tribunal under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act to the Insurance Company. However, the argument of the learned counsel is based upon the observations of a judgment cited as Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd and another v. Diva Shankar Rai and another 2008 ACJ 1597, wherein it has been observed FAO No.3265 of 2009(O&M) 2 as under: “By several decisions of the High Courts and the Apex Court, the law has been settled that the appeal filed by the insurance company will be maintainable only on the ground of violation of Section 149(2) of the M.V. Act, 1988 and on other grounds it will be maintainable only when the appellant-Insurance Company has obtained permission under Section 170 of the M.V. Act from the Tribunal. But it is also settled law that in exceptional cases, the appellate Court can interfere in the judgment of the Tribunal when the Tribunal has applied wrong principle of law or has awarded very low or too excessive amount of compensation. To support my view, I place reliance upon para 3 of the decision in Nagappa Mahadev Doddaamani v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd., 1999 ACJ 1128 (SC) and para 15 of Bihar Co-op.Motor Vehicles Ins. Society Ltd. v. Rameshwar Raut, 1969 ACJ 405 (Patna). Thus, the point for consideration before me is that whether the Tribunal has applied wrong principle of law while awarding the compensation and whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is too excessive.” I have perused the impugned award. I find that the respondent-claimant was admittedly having a head injury and when he was brought to the hospital he was in a serious condition and thereafter, though he remained in the hospital only for 11 days yet extensive investigations were done over him and in fact from the FAO No.3265 of 2009(O&M) 3 medical treatment record, I find that even the respondent-claimant has produced on file the medical bills amounting to Rs.29,506/- and receipt of attendant's expenses amounting to Rs.30,000/- and transportation bills amounting to Rs.41,000/-. It is also not disputed that the respondent- claimant had suffered disability to the tune of Rs.70% on which account, the Tribunal had given Rs.1,40,000/- as compensation. The grant of the aforesaid amount could not be disputed. It may also be seen that the Tribunal while granting the total compensation of Rs.3,40,000/- has also taken into account the pain, suffering, diet and future treatment of the respondent-claimant. In view of the aforesaid facts of the case, it is not a case where the Tribunal has granted exceptionally excessive amount of compensation to the respondent-claimant. Thus, even the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellant is of no help to him. The amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the appellant may be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement to the respondent-claimant. Dismissed. July 27, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE