1 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.890 OF 1996 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,Satara ...Appellant vs. 1 Shaukat Rasul Mohammed Bagwan 2 Sou.Arundhati Arvind Bhave 3 S.Kernelsingh S/o Niranjansingh (deleted as per Court s order dt.2/9/2010) 4 National Insurance Co.Ltd.Satara ...Respondents Ms Anita A. Agarwal for the appellant Mr. M.G.Barve for respondent no.2 CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : OCTOBER 4, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1 Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. The present appeal is preferred for challenging the Judgment and Award dated 30th March 1986 passed by the learned Member of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in a claim petition filed by the 2nd respondent under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988. Award has been jointly and severally made against the appellant and the 1st respondent. The appellant is the insurer of the vehicle owned by the 1st respondent which was involved in the accident. 2 It is not in dispute that there were appeals preferred by the appellant challenging the Award made by the tribunal in favour of the claimants in other claim petitions arising out of the same accident. While deciding the said appeals, the liability of the 2 appellant has been confirmed. 3 The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the compensation granted to the 2nd respondent is on the higher side and without there being any evidence of loss of income, compensation of Rs.80,000/- has been granted. 4 Perusal of the record shows that the 1st respondent insured contested the claim petition by filing the written statement and by adducing evidence. The appellant had not applied for grant of leave under section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988. Hence, challenge to the quantum is not open at the instance of the appellant in the appeal. As far as liability of the appellant is concerned, issue has been already concluded in the companion appeal arising out the same accident. Hence it is not a case where interference can be made with the quantum of compensation. Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE