FAO No.218/2002 Page 1 of 2 40 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.218/2002 Date of Decision: 15th May, 2009 % UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Anand Vardhan Sharma and Mr. Vishnu Mehra, Advocates. versus MASTER ASHISH WADHWA & ORS. ..... Respondents 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) 1. The appellant has challenged the common award passed by the learned Tribunal whereby three separate claim petitions were decided. 2. The accident dated 6th April, 1993 resulted in the death of Syam Sunder Wadhwa and his wife, Kamlesh Wadhwa and injuries to their daughter baby Pooja Wadhwa who were travelling in the car which was hit by a Tanker bearing No.DEL 3153. Three separate claim petitions were filed before the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs.4 lacs in respect of death of Syam Sunder Wadha; Rs.3.5 lacs in respect of the death of Kamlesh Wadhwa; and Rs.5.50 lacs in respect of injuries suffered FAO No.218/2002 Page 2 of 2 by baby Pooja Wadhwa. 3. The appellant has challenged the common award whereby three claim petitions were decided. One single appeal is not maintainable to challenge the award passed in three separate claim petitions and, therefore, the appeal is not maintainable on this ground. 4. The appellant has challenged the quantum of compensation awarded in the aforesaid three claim petitions. The learned counsel for the appellant admits that the appellant does not have permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act from the learned Tribunal. It is well settled that the Insurance Company cannot challenge the quantum of compensation without permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nicolletta Rohtagi, (2002) 7 SCC 456 and Shankarayya vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (1998) 3 SCC 140. This appeal is, therefore, not maintainable. 5. Notwithstanding the bar of Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act as well as the non-maintainability of one appeal against three separate claim petitions, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is just, fair and reasonable and, therefore, no case is made out even on merits. 6. For all the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is dismissed. J.R. MIDHA, J MAY 15, 2009 s.pal