THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2059 of 2003 Date: 29-7-2010 Between The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Authorized Signatory, Regional Office, Begumpet, Hyderabad … Appellant/Respondent No.2 and 1. C.Shailaja … Respondent/Petitioner 2. Dr. C.Jalapath Rao … Respondent/Respondent No.1 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2059 of 2003 Oral Judgment: Heard both sides. 2. Appeal by the insurer challenging the order and decree, dated 26-7-2002, in O.P.No.819 of 1996, passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Additional District Judge, Nizamabad in awarding a sum of Rs.3,90,000/- as against the claim of Rs.8,00,000/- towards compensation for the injuries received by the petitioner in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 25- 3-1996 due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of car bearing No.AP25B-8080 belonging to respondent No.2 herein. 3. It is the case of the claimant, who is a woman, that on 25-3-1996 when she was travelling in the car from Nizamabad towards Hyderabad and when the car reached near Masaipet village shivar, the driver of her car drove the same with a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, due to which the car went off the road and dashed against a banyan tree and met with an accident, resulting in five serious fractures at vital parts of the claimant. 4. The insurer had raised two contentions before the Tribunal -- firstly; separate premium was being paid for four occupants and in which case, the liability of the insurer would be limited to the extent of Rs.40,000/- to each only and secondly; the policy issued by the insurer is not a comprehensive policy and it is only a personal accident policy. 5. But, as per the evidence adduced on behalf of the insurer, it was admitted by R.W.1, a Senior Assistant in the insurer, in her cross-examination, that the policy Ex.B-1 was a comprehensive policy and it covers the risk of five persons including the driver. Therefore, the said contention was rejected and the quantification was made basing on the other facts, particularly the injuries suffered by the claimant, pain and suffering etc. 6. Virtually, this is an appeal challenging the quantification, though the learned standing counsel for the insurer contends that the insurer is challenging the liability. 7. For two reasons, this appeal is liable to be dismissed -- firstly; the policy Ex.B-1 issued by the insurer is a comprehensive policy, in which event the insurer is liable to pay the compensation to the claimant and secondly; when virtually the quantification is under challenge, permission ought to have been obtained by the insurer by way of filing an application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Tribunal and in the present case, no such permission was obtained. 8. In view of the above deficiencies on the part of the appellant-insurer, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 9. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the order under appeal. _______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 29th July, 2010. Ak THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2059 of 2003 29th July, 2010. (Ak)