- (1.) S. P. Srivastava, J. Heard the learned Counsel for the insurer-appellant as well as the learned Counsel representing the claimant-respondent No. 1.
(2.) PERUSED the record. The insurer appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act feeling aggrieved by the award of an amount of Rs. 3,20,200 [rs. Three lacs twenty thousand and two hundred only] determined by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, as just compensation to which the injured claimant was found entitled to on account of his suffering grievous injuries resulting in 40% permanent disability, in an accident involving the offending motor vehicle-a-bus-bearing registration No. UP 78/8319. The learned Counsel for the appellant has stated that no effort had been made by the insurer to obtain any permission as envisaged under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is, therefore, obvious that the scope of the appeal is limited, as the insurer in the absence of the requisite permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act cannot challenge the quantum of compensation.
(3.) IT may be noticed that the effect of the omission by the insurer to obtain permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act was considered by the apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. , Chandigarh v. Nicolletta Rohtagi and others, 2002 (2) JCLR 925 (SC); JT 2002 (7) SC 251. The apex Court after taking into consideration various aspects and various provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act had come to the conclusion that in the absence of permission as envisaged under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the ground on which the quantum of compensation can be challenged by an owner cannot be said to be available to the insurer.;