1 S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.266/2001 (The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Versus Leela Ram & Others) Date of Order :: 1st February, 2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr. Vizzy Agarwal, counsel for the appellant. Mr. Naresh Gupta) counsel for the respondents Mr. L.L. Gupta ) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 5th May, 2000 rendered by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hindaun (Rajasthan) whereby the learned Tribunal decreed an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- in favour of claimants and against the non-claimant-respondents. 2. The background facts, in a nut-shell, are thus: “On 24.4.1988 at about 7.00 PM, the driver of Jeep bearing registration No. RJU 5698 drove it rashly and negligently and dashed against Sushila @ Kalli resulting into her death.” 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record. 4. At the very out-set, the learned counsel for the respondents assailed the maintainability of filing of appeal and contended that the insurer is not permissible to file an appeal questioning the 2 quantum of compensation. Hence, the appeal being not maintainable, deserves to be dismissed. 5. Having reflected over the submissions made at the bar and carefully scanned the relevant material on record, it is noticed that in view of the judgment delivered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited, Chandigarh Versus Nicolletta Rohtagi and Others, reported in AIR 2002 SC 3305 : 2202 ACJ 1950, the Insurance Company cannot file an appeal questioning the quantum of compensation. 6. In the case of National Insurance Company Ltd., Chandigarh (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that “it is not permissible for an insurer to file an appeal questioning the quantum of compensation.” 7. In the case of Shankarayya and another Versus United India Insurance Company Limited and Another reported in 1998 (3) SCC 140, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that “in absence of the existence of the conditions precedent mentioned in Section 170 of Motor Vehicles Act, the insurance company was not entitled to file an appeal on merits questioning the quantum of compensation.” 3 8. The same observation was made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narendra Kumar and another Versus Yarenissa and others reported in 1998 (9) SCC 202. 9. In the light of the aforesaid pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the instant appeal is also found not to be maintainable and the same deserves to be dismissed. 10. In the result, the aforesaid appeal being not maintainable stands dismissed accordingly. (MAHESH BHAGWATI),J. DK/-