IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No.936 OF 2007 Between: M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd. ..... Appellant AND Smt. K.N.V. Sasantha Kumari & 3 others ..... Respondents The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No.936 OF 2007 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy) This appeal has been filed by the second respondent in M.V.O.P.No.165 of 2004, on the file of the Chairman, Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, whereby and whereunder, the learned Chairman of the Accidents Claims Tribunal allowed the claim of the claimants in part and granted compensation of Rs.20,32,096/- with proportionate costs and future interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till deposit. 2. Respondents 1 to 3 herein are the claimants in M.V.O.P.No.165 of 2004. They filed the claim petition under Section 163-A and Schedule II of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- for the death of Sri K. Suryanarayana, aged 50 years, in road accident occurred on 25.06.2004 at about 02.15 hours. The said Satyanarayana was proceeding towards Hyderabad from Secunderabad on a Hero Honda Splendor motor cycle bearing No. AP 9AH 6239 and on reaching near Raghupathi Venkata Ratnam Naidu Statue on Upper Tank Bund Road, the Tata Indica Car bearing No.AP 16AB 9090 came in opposite direction driven in rash and negligent manner and dashed the Hero Honda Splendor motor cycle. As a result, the rider of the motor cycle fell down and sustained serious injuries. He was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Hyderabad where the doctors declared him brought dead. A case in Crime No.228 of 2004 under Section 304-A of IPC was registered against the driver of the Tata Indica Car by the Station House Officer, Gandhinagar Police Station. 3. According to the claimants, the deceased was working as a Senior Technical Officer in E.C.I.L., Hyderabad and was drawing a salary of Rs.23,894/- per month and he was contributing his earnings to the family. Respondent No.1 being the owner and Respondent No.2 being the insurer of the vehicle are liable to pay the compensation. 4. The insurer filed counter affidavit disputing its liability. 5. The learned Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Tata Indica Car bearing No.AP 16AB 9090. 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so to what amount and against whom. 3. To what relief.” 6. On behalf of the claimants, two witnesses were examined and ten documents were marked. On behalf of the insurer, no ocular evidence was adduced, but a certified copy of the policy was marked as Ex.B-1. 7. The learned Chairman of the Accidents Claims Tribunal, on considering the evidence brought on record and on hearing both the parties, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tata Indica Car bearing No.AP 16AB 9090 and the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.20,32,096/- with proportionate costs and future interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit by order, dated 14.07.2006. The said order is assailed in this Appeal filed by the insurer under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/insurer and the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3/claimants. 9. The only ground urged in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is with regard to quantum of the compensation. In this regard, the law is well settled to the effect that in order to challenge the quantum of compensation, awarded by the Tribunal, the insurer must necessarily obtain permission as envisaged under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 10. Unless the permission be obtained by the appellant from the Tribunal to challenge the quantum of compensation, the insurer cannot be permitted to challenge the same vide the decision of our High Court reported in NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP, BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, NELLORE VS. SHAIK MUMTHAZ BEGUM[1]. 11. Indisputably, the appellant/insurer has not obtained permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1988, seeking permission of the Tribunal to plead all the defenses available to the owner. In such circumstances, the appellant/insurer cannot be permitted to question the quantum of amount awarded by the Tribunal. 12. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. fails and is dismissed. ______________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J ______________________ P.DURGA PRASAD, J Date: 21st December, 2010 KL THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No.936 OF 2007 (Judgment delivered by BSSR, J) December 21, 2010. KL [1] 2007 (3) ALT 499