IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH FAO.No.252 of 2009 Date of decision: 19.1.2009 National Insurance Company Ltd ......Petitioner(s) Versus Santosh Saini and others ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Navin Kapur, Advocate for the appellant. JASWANT SINGH,J(ORAL) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-National Insurance Company against the impugned award dated 7.12.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewari whereby a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation has been awarded to respondents No.1 to 5- claimants (widow, minor children and parents) on account of death of Suresh Kumar in a road accident on 30.11.2005. Briefly, the facts are that on 30.11.2005, Suresh Kumar- deceased was going on his Scooter No.HR-36A-8167 from his house to Rewari. At about 2.00 P.M when he was near the field of Raghbir Singh in Village Fideri, a tractor bearing registration No.HR-43-6623 with trolley, which was being driven by Jitender, came from the opposite side at a very high speed in a rash and negligent manner. The tractor came on the wrong side of the road and hit the scooter of the deceased, who died on the spot. The factum of the accident was not denied. Deceased Suresh Kumar was working as a sergeant/Radio Technician in the Indian Air Force and his gross emoluments in August 2005, as per salary slip (Ex.P.1), are shown to be Rs.16787/-. A sum of Rs.787/- was held liable to be deducted on account of income tax and the salary of the deceased was taken to be Rs.16,000/-. A sum of Rs.5000/- were deducted towards personal expenses and monthly dependency of the deceased was taken at Rs.11,000/- P.M. A multiplier of 16 had been applied as the age of the deceased was 34 years at the time of death. Thus, the compensation, which had been determined, was FAO.No.252 of 2009 #2# Rs.21,12,000/-, however, the amount of compensation was scaled down to Rs.20,00,000/- as claimants had themselves claimed a sum of Rs.20,00000/-. Learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the award solely on the quantum of compensation by arguing that the compensation is on the higher side as appropriate multiplier in this case should not have been more than 13. Learned counsel for the appellant has very fairly conceded that no application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been filed by the Insurance Company. It is not disputed by learned counsel for the appellant that Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd v. Nicolletta Rohtagi and others, 2002 ACJ 1950 and R. Mannakatti and others v. M. Subramanian and another, 2006(4) RCR (Civil), 326, has held that for the Insurance Company to maintain an appeal against the award on the ground of quantum of compensation, an application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act is required to be filed before the Claims Tribunal seeking permission to take up the grounds beyond the permissible under Sub Section (2) of Section 149 the Motor Vehicles Act,1988. It is also not disputed that no such recourse was adopted. In view of the above, the present appeal is dismissed being not maintainable. Dismissed. January 19,2009 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE