- (1.) S. P. Srivastava, J. Heard the learned Counsel for the insurer-appellant. The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act feeling aggrieved by the award determining an amount of Rs. 1,52,2000 (One Lac Fifty Two Thousand and Two Hundred) as compensation to which the injured-claimant was found entitled to on account of grievous injuries received by him in an accident involving the offending motor vehicle insured by the present appellant covering the risk.
(2.) THE Tribunal, after considering the evidence and material brought on record, had come to the conclusion that the injured was aged about 29 years at the time of the accident and was having an income of Rs. 1,500 per month. For the expenditure incurred by the injured on his medical treatment, the Tribunal had found it appropriate to award an amount of Rs. 50,000 and for diet etc. another amount of Rs. 5,000. THE extent of permanent disability was found to be only 30%. Learned Counsel for the appellant has not disputed that no effort was made by the Insurer to get permission envisaged under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The learned Counsel for the appellant has tried to assail the findings returned against it by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. It is, however, not disputed that no effort was made by the insurer-appellant to obtain the requisite permission envisaged under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The whole effort of the insurer-appellant is to get reduced the liability fastened upon it under the impugned award in respect of the payment of the amount of compensation. The effect of the omission to obtain permission envisaged under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act had been considered in quite detail by the apex Court in its decision in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. , Chandigarh v. Nicolletta Rohtagi and others, reported in JT 2002 (7) SC 251. The ratio of the aforesaid decision stands squarely attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case as brought on record.
(3.) TAKING into consideration the ratio of the aforesaid decision which stands attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Insurer-appellant is not entitled to get reduced the liability in regard to payment of the amount of compensation in question fastened upon it under the impugned award. Taking into consideration the nature of the grievous injuries and the disabilities resulting there from, the amount of compensation awarded cannot be held to be unjust and excessive specially taking into account the amount of medical expenses already incurred.;