MAC .APP.92/2009 Page 1 of 3 3 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + MAC.APP. 92/2009 Date of Decision: 8th April, 2009 % ICICI LOMBAD GENERAL INS. CO. LTD. ..... Appellant Through : Ms. Pratima Choudhary, Adv. versus LUV KUMAR DAS & ORS. ..... Respondent 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) CM No.3660/2009 1. For the reasons stated in the application, the appeal is restored to its original number. 2. CM stands disposed of. CM No.1837/2009 1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. 2. CM stands disposed of. CM No.1836/2009 1. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing of this appeal is condoned. 2. CM stands disposed of. MAC .APP.92/2009 Page 2 of 3 MAC.APP. 92/2009 1. The appellant has challenged the impugned award on quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants. 2. The appellant had not taken the permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and, therefore, the appellant cannot challenge the quantum of compensation to the claimants. Reference in this regard 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 it has been 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 appeal filed by the insurance company cannot be maintained. 3. Even on merits, the main ground of challenge by the appellant is that the learned Tribunal should have applied a lower multiplier. The deceased victim of the accident was aged 35 years at the time of the accident. The deceased was survived by her husband and two minor children. The learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 16 according to the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. There are no exceptional circumstances in this case to warrant the application of the lower multiplier. There is no infirmity in adopting the multiplier of 16 by the learned Tribunal. MAC .APP.92/2009 Page 3 of 3 4. The second ground raised by the appellant is that the driver of the scooter on which the deceased was sitting on the pillion was under the influence of the liquor. The appellant has referred to and relied upon the discharge slip on which it is recorded that there was smell of alcohol in the breath of the driver of the scooter. The discharge slip further records that the driver was conscious and oriented. There is no evidence to show that the driver of the scooter was under the influence of the liquor. In any view of the matter, this averment will not have any effect on the award of compensation as the deceased was sitting on the pillion and has not contributed to the accident in any manner. The learned Tribunal has held the Haryana Roadways Bus bearing No.HR-55A-7461 to be rash and negligent and the compensation has been awarded against the appellant who had insured the Haryana Roadways Bus which resulted in the accident in question. 5. For all these reasons, the appeal is dismissed. CM No.1836/2009 Dismissed. J.R. MIDHA, J APRIL 08, 2009 aj