JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. The insurer-appellant has questioned the judgment and award dated 2.3.2007, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandi, H.P., for short “The Tribunal” in Claim Petition No. 37 of 2004, titled Jai Krishan vs. Sh. Narender Singh and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.3,54,800/-, with 6% interest per annum came to be awarded in favour of the claimant and against the respondents, hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award”, for short, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 2. The insured, driver, owner and claimant have not questioned the impugned award on any grounds, thus it has attained finality so far it relates to them. 3. The insurer-appellant has questioned the impugned award only on the ground of adequacy of compensation. No other ground is urged. 4. The moot question is whether the insurer can question the impugned award on the ground of quantum. The question stands replied by the apex Court in a recent judgment titled Josphine James vs. United Insurance Company Ltd. and anr., reported in 2013 AIR (SCW) 6633, wherein it has been held that the insurer cannot question the award on the ground of quantum of compensation. It is apt to reproduce paras 8, 17 and 18 of the said judgment herein: “8. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award passed by the High Court in MAC Appeal No. 433/2005 and the review petition, the present appeal is filed by the appellant urging certain grounds and assailing the impugned judgment in allowing the appeal of the Insurance Company without following the law laid down by this Court in Nicolletta Rohtagi's case (supra) and instead, placing reliance upon the Bhushan Sachdeva's case (supra). Nicolletta Rohtagi's case was exhaustively discussed by a three judge bench in the case of United India Insurance Company Vs. Shila Datta. Though the Court has expressed its reservations against the correctness of the legal position in Nicolletta Rohtagi decision on various aspects, the same has been referred to higher bench and has not been overruled as yet. Hence, the ratio of Nicolletta Rohtagi's case will be still applicable in the present case. The appellant claimed that interference by the High Court with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in favour of appellant and considerably reducing the same by modifying the judgment of the Tribunal is vitiated in law. Hence, the ratio of Nicolletta Rohtagi's case will be still applicable in the present case. The appellant claimed that interference by the High Court with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in favour of appellant and considerably reducing the same by modifying the judgment of the Tribunal is vitiated in law. Therefore, the impugned judgments and awards are liable to be set aside. 17. The said order was reviewed by the High Court at the instance of the appellant in view of the aforesaid decision on the question of maintainability of the appeal of the Insurance Company. The High Court, in the review petition, has further reduced the compensation to Rs. 4,20,000/- from Rs. 6,75,000/- which was earlier awarded by it. This approach is contrary to the facts and law laid down by this Court. The High Court, in reducing the quantum of compensation under the heading of loss of dependency of the appellant, was required to follow the decision rendered by three judge Bench of this Court in Nicolletta Rohtagi case (supra)and earlier decisions wherein this Court after interpreting Section 170 (b) of the M. V. Act, has rightly held that in the absence of permission obtained by the Insurance Company from the Tribunal to avail the defence of the insured, it is not permitted to contest the case on merits. The aforesaid legal principle is applicable to the fact situation in view of the three judge bench decision referred to supra though the correctness of the aforesaid decision is referred to larger bench. This important aspect of the matter has been overlooked by the High Court while passing the impugned judgment and the said approach is contrary to law laid down by this Court. 18. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the Insurance Company is not entitled to file appeal questioning the quantum of compensation awarded in favour of the appellant for the reasons stated supra. In the absence of the same, the Insurance Company had only limited defence to contest in the proceedings as provided under Section 149 (2) of the M.V. Act. Therefore, the impugned judgment passed by the High Court on 13.1.2012 reducing the compensation to 4,20,000/- under the heading of loss of dependency by deducting 50% from the monthly income of the deceased of Rs. 5,000/- and applying 14 multiplier, is factually and legally incorrect. Therefore, the impugned judgment passed by the High Court on 13.1.2012 reducing the compensation to 4,20,000/- under the heading of loss of dependency by deducting 50% from the monthly income of the deceased of Rs. 5,000/- and applying 14 multiplier, is factually and legally incorrect. The High Court has erroneously arrived at this amount by applying the principle of law laid down in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation instead of applying the principle laid down in Baby Radhika Gupta's case (supra) regarding the multiplier applied to the fact situation and also contrary to the law applicable regarding the maintainability of appeal of the Insurance Company on the question of quantum of compensation in the absence of permission to be obtained by it from the Tribunal under Section 170 (b) of the M.V. Act. In view of the aforesaid reason, the High Court should not have allowed the appeal of the Insurance Company as it has got limited defence as provided under section 149(2) of the M.V. Act. Therefore, the impugned judgment and award is vitiated in law and hence, is liable to be set aside by allowing the appeal of the appellant.” 5. Having said so, the appeal on this ground is not maintainable. However, I have gone through the impugned award. The impugned award appears to be just and adequate for the reason that the claimant being the victim of a vehicular accident suffered injury and the Tribunal, after examining the entire evidence on the record has given the break-ups that how the claimant is entitled to compensation in para 24 of the impugned judgment. I deem it proper to reproduce para 24 of the impugned judgment herein: “24. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has to carry the disability throughout his life and he would not be able to do any kind of hard work, as such, an amount of Rs.30,000/- and an equal amount for loss of amenities of life appears to be just and reasonable. The Tribunal cannot ignore the fact that petitioner is unmarried and disability has certainly reduced marital prospects of the petitioner. As such, the petitioner is awarded the amount of compensation under different heads as under:- 1. Medical expenses Rs.52,000.00 2. Attendant charges Rs.15,000.00 3. Taxi fare Rs.23,800.00 4. Loss of income Rs.2,04,000.00 5. Pain and suffering Rs.30,000.00 6. Loss of amenities of Rs.30,000.00 Total Rs.3,54,800.00” 6. As such, the petitioner is awarded the amount of compensation under different heads as under:- 1. Medical expenses Rs.52,000.00 2. Attendant charges Rs.15,000.00 3. Taxi fare Rs.23,800.00 4. Loss of income Rs.2,04,000.00 5. Pain and suffering Rs.30,000.00 6. Loss of amenities of Rs.30,000.00 Total Rs.3,54,800.00” 6. As a corollary to the aforesaid discussion, the appeal merits dismissal and is accordingly dismissed and the impugned award is upheld. CMP No. 721 of 2007, is dismissed as not pressed. 7. Send down the record, forthwith.