-1- IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION FARAD FARAD FARAD CONTINUNATION SHEET CONTINUNATION SHEET CONTINUNATION SHEET FIRST FIRST FIRST APPEAL ST.NO.28225 OF 2005 APPEAL ST.NO.28225 OF 2005 APPEAL ST.NO.28225 OF 2005 ............................................................. ............................................................. ............................................................. Office Notes,Office Office Notes,Office Office Notes,Office memorandum of Coram, memorandum of Coram, memorandum of Coram, appearances,Court’s appearances,Court’s appearances,Court’s Court’s Court’s Court’s or or or orders or directions orders or directions orders or directions Judge’s Judge’s Judge’s orders orders orders & Registrar’s orders. & Registrar’s orders. & Registrar’s orders. ............................................................. ............................................................. ............................................................. Mr.R.P.Behere for the Appellant Mr.M.B.Kotak for Respondent No.1 CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA, J. A.S.OKA, J. A.S.OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : FEBRUARY 7,2008. : FEBRUARY 7,2008. : FEBRUARY 7,2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard learned Advocate for the Appellant. By this Appeal, the Appellant Insurer has challenge the Judgment and Award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in a claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988. The claim petition filed by the first Respondent has been allowed by the Tribunal. Perusal of the impugned Judgment and Award shows that a leave under section 170 of the said Act of 1988 was not granted in favour of the Appellant. The Appellant has not taken any defence which is covered by sub section 2 of section 149 of the said Act of 1988. -2- 2. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nicolletta Rohtagi [(2002) 7 S.C.C. page 456], the Appeal by the insurer is not maintainable in absence of a leave under section 170 of the said Act of 1988. Only on this ground, Appeal is not entertained and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. The Appellant will be entitled to refund of Rs.25,000/- deposited in this court. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE