1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13.07.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.199 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1 of 2011 United India Insurance Company Limited represented by its Branch Manager, K.B.S. Motors Building, 36, Katpadi Road, Gandhi Nagar, Vellore. ..Appellant/Respondent No.2 Vs. 1.P.Thollappan 2.Iyyappan ..Respondents/Petitioner and 1st Respondent Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 30.09.2010 passed in M.C.O.P.No.135 of 2009 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional District Court/Special Judge, Thanjavur. For Appellant .. Mr.R.Srinivasan For Respondent .. Mr.AN.Ramanathan No.1 For Respondent .. No appearance No.2 JUDGMENT This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred against the award dated 30.09.2010 passed in M.C.O.P.No.135 of 2009 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional District Court, Thanjavur. 2. The first respondent herein as petitioner has filed M.C.O.P.No.135 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal praying to pass an award of Rs.25,29,000/- by way of compensation, wherein the present appellant has been shown as second respondent. 3. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal after considering the rival evidence available on record has awarded Rs.18,23,000/- by way of compensation against the present appellant/second respondent. In respect of quantum, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred at the instance of the second respondent as appellant. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/second respondent has vehemently contended that the quantum of compensation https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 fixed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is excessive and without any basis, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has fixed the compensation in question and therefore the same is liable to be modified. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent has contended that before questioning the quantum of compensation, the appellant/second respondent has not obtained necessary permission by way of filing a petition under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and therefore the appellant/second respondent is legally precluded from questioning the quantum and therefore the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. As rightly pointed out on the side of the first respondent/petitioner, no petition has been filed on the side of the appellant/second respondent so as to question quantum of compensation. Under the said circumstances, the appellant/second respondent is legally precluded from raising any objection with regard to quantum and therefore the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. In fine, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed without costs and the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.135 of 2009 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional District Court, Thanjavur is confirmed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AE) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Additional District Judge/Special Judge, Thanjavur. +1cc to Mr.AN.Ramanathan, Advocate SR.No.22675 smn akm/01.08.11 /2p-3c/ C.M.A(MD)No.199 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 13.07.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/