JUDGMENT
A.S. Sapre and Tiwari, JJ.
1. The decision rendered in this appeal shall also govern disposal of other two connected appeals being M.A. Nos. 772 and 1192 of 2002, because all these appeals arise out of one claim case.
2. So far as M.A. Nos. 771 and 772 of 2002 are concerned, these two appeals are filed by insurance company challenging the quantum of compensation. They arise out of an award, dated 15.1.2002, in Claim Case No. 42 of 2001, passed by learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dewas. Whereas other appeal, i.e., M.A. No. 1192 of 2002 is concerned, the same is filed by the claimants for enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. In this view the question in two appeals filed by the insurance company is whether compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants is excessive and hence, be reduced whereas in M.A. No. 1192 of 2002 the question is whether any case for enhancement in the compensation awarded is made out?
3. Heard Mr. S.V. Dandwate, learned Counsel for the appellant, Mr. P. Verma, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, none for respondent No. 4 and Mr. A.K. Sethi, learned Counsel for respondent No. 5.
4. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused record of the case, we are of the view that all the three appeals are liable to be dismissed resulting in upholding of the impugned award passed in respect of cases filed by claimants.
5. So far as two appeals filed by the insurance company are concerned, admittedly no permission as contemplated under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act was given to company by the Tribunal. Rather it was prayed but rejected by the Tribunal. In this view of the matter, the insurance company has no right to file an appeal under Section 173 of the Act challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. This right is available to driver and owner of the offending vehicle, but not to the insurer. It is only when the Tribunal accords the permission to insurance company to contest the case on all the grounds available then only the appeal can be filed by the insurance company.
6. Submission of learned Counsel for the insurance company (appellant herein) was that Tribunal erred in not granting permission to insurance company. According to learned Counsel, the permission should have been granted and hence, this Court in this appeal should grant permission and decide appeal being a competent one. We do not agree to this submission. Firstly, it is the discretion of the Tribunal to grant or refuse to grant permission. Secondly, once the permission prayed was refused, the insurance company did not choose to challenge the said Order in appeal/revision/ writ as the case may be and allowed the case to proceed and lastly, this Court in appeal cannot grant any such permission and then allow the appellant to file and prosecute the appeal.
7. In view of aforesaid infirmity which in our opinion is legal as also fatal, the appeals filed by the insurance company challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by Tribunal cannot be entertained and if entertained cannot be allowed for either setting aside of the award or for modifying the award for reducing the compensation awarded.
8. Even otherwise and leaving aside the aforesaid infirmities, there is no case made out for calling any interference in the impugned awards. Both are death case. In one case (M.A. No. 771 of 2002), Gulab- a male, aged 50 years was doing business of cloth died. He was awarded a sum of Rs. 6,70,000 after taking into account his age, monthly income, etc. We find this to be the reasonable sum in the facts of the case and the evidence adduced. No case for any reduction at the instance of insurance company in the light of legal infirmity noticed is made out. We, therefore, uphold the award.
9. Coming to M.A. No. 772 of 2002, a maleSumati Lai died. He was aged 46 years and was engaged in commission business. He was awarded a total sum of Rs. 6,31,000. We find on basis of evidence adduced the sum to be the reasonable and proper one, calling no interference like the aforesaid one. We also do not find any case to even increase than what is awarded and hence, no case for enhancement is made out.
10. learned Counsel for the appellant (insurance company) placing reliance on one unreported decision of this Court contended that since income of deceased was more than the income tax limit and since no return was filed, the same be reduced. We find no good ground to entertain this submission once we hold that insurance company had no right to file appeal under Section 173 of the Act, nor any case is made out for grant of permission as contemplated under Section 170 ibid.
11. In this view of the matter, we hold that Tribunal was justified in awarding reasonable and proper compensation in both the cases of death and hence, neither any case of reduction is made out, nor any case of enhancement is made out.
12. As a result of aforesaid discussion, all the three appeals are found to have no substance, they are dismissed resulting in upholding of the award in toto.
No costs.