MAC .APP.No.132/2009 Page 1 of 3 28 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + MAC.APP.No.132/2009 Date of Decision: 20th July, 2009 % THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant Through : Ms. Sakshi Gupta, Adv. versus INDRA SARDANA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through : Mr. O.P. Mannie and Mr. M.N. Dudeja, Advs. for R-1. 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 award of the learned Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs.8,10,000/- has been awarded to claimant/respondent No.1. 2. The accident dated 11th July, 1999 resulted in grievous injuries to the claimant. The claimant was 19 years old at the time of the accident and was a student. Seven teeth of the claimant were broken/lost in the accident for which she requires implant. Dr. R.K. Bali, a renowned dentist appeared in the witness box as PW-5 and deposed that the claimant MAC .APP.No.132/2009 Page 2 of 3 would require implant for seven teeth and the charges for each implant is Rs.35,000/-. The claimant was unmarried at the time of the accident. The claimant had qualified the entrance examination for getting admission in MBBS but lost her career and could not become a doctor. The claimant was disqualified in interview on the ground of broken teeth. The claimant was also disqualified by Air-Force Nursing College on account of teeth problem. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimant. However, since the appellant had not taken the permission from the learned Tribunal under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the appellant cannot challenge the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimant. Reference in this regard be made to the judgments by 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 is not maintainable. 4. No case is made out even on merits. Considering the nature of injuries suffered by the claimant, the learned Tribunal awarded Rs.8,10,000/- to the claimant which is just, MAC .APP.No.132/2009 Page 3 of 3 fair and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of this case. 5. For all the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is dismissed. CM No.9696/2009 Since the appeal has been held to be non-maintainable, the cross objections are dismissed. CM No.3049/2009 1. Dismissed. 2. The learned Tribunal is directed to immediately release the original FDR in respect of the 50% of the award amount to the claimant. 3. Copy of this order be given ‘Dasti’ to learned counsel for the parties under the signature of Court Master. J.R. MIDHA, J JULY 20, 2009 aj