@ ( v BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT M.A. N:ILQA:P£I:)F 2004. @Vggiga gym}? APPELLANT /— United India Insurance Company Ltd,,’ NQ§-APPLICANT N0. 3 Allahabad (UttanPradesh). V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :- 1. Smt. Dashmati @ Dasmati, widow of ( Late Hatram, aged about 30 years, Resident of Baltunga Colliery, Chirmiri District presently Korea(Chhattis garh), 2. Smt. Bhuri Bai, wife of Nanki, aged I/ about 55 years, resident of Bartunga Colliery, Chirmiri, District Korea(C.G.) . Basant Kumar, son of Late Hetrarn, aged about 13 years, Ashok Kurnar, son of Late Hetram, i ; y aged about 9 years, 1; y . Vinod Kumar, son of Late Hetram, aged about 7 years, k i All respondent no. 3,4,5 through legal , Guardian Smt. Dashmati, widow of Late Hetram, allresident of Bartunga Colliery, Chjrmiri, Tahsil Manendragarh, District Presently Korea (Chhattisgarh) CLAIMANTS 6. aim Khan, soiibfunknoiwn, resident of 215 Veligaon, Allahabad (Uttar Pradesh), V 7. Kailash Nath Yadav, son‘ of Ratirarn, ' resident of Vishnupur, Police Station i; "i Sikrara, District Allahabad (Uttar Pradesh). ON-APPLICANT N0. 1 AND 2. L’ff— é; r N XI-HC-22 WW,W§,W mm mm .. .hx A‘.")D.q.?’1’ may 200 W This is an appeal filed b United lndia insurance Co. Ltd. under Section 173 of the Motor Vehi les Act, 1988 against the award dated 21/06/2004, passed by the Ad itional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manendragarh, district Korea in Claim Case No.06 of 1997 awarding a sum of’Rs.9,85,000/- in favour o respondents/claimants. The ground taken in the ppeal memorandum is that the Tribunal was wrong in not framing the e of contributory negligence though pleaded by the appellant and at the compensation should have been reduced after apportioning th contribution to the accident by the deceased. The appeal is not mai against the award on the gro d that the compensation amount was . liable to be reduced on account of contributoty negligence on the part of the deceased, was not main inable as the conditions specitied in Section 170 of the Motor Vehicl s Act. 1988 were not satisned andas a matter of fact no permission was granted by the Tribunal to the insurance Company to contest e proceedings before the Tribunal on the grounds other than the gro nds mentioned~in Section 149(2) ofthe New) u mm mm mmatw we wma‘f &'Wm mm évwm DIVISION BENCH: \ Hon’ble Shri A.K. Patnaik, CJ & Hon'ble Shri L.C. Bhadoo, J. 30I03I2005: - MISC. APPEAL No.922 Heard Mr. H.B. Ag , Sr. Adv., with Miss Shipra Biswas learned counsel for the appellan ‘f'M' XI-HC-22 m Wm....h‘.£\..r9a;fi.zb Lgo$ .......... ...................... aw ............................. mam mm WWW mm§wm mm -21, $WW said Act. The Supreme Court in the case of National insurance Co. Ltd, Chandigarh Vs. Niconetta Ruhtagi and others, reported in 2002 SAR (Civil) 860 has decided th aforesaid issue and the relevant paragraphs i.e. 31 & 32 of the afore aid judgment are quoted hereunder: “31. We have ai ady held that unless the conditions precedent speciti in Section 170 of 1988 Act is satisfied, an lnsurance Co panyhas no right of appeals to challenge theaward on m rits. However, ina situation where there is a collusion between the claimants and insured or the insured do not contest the'claim and, further,“ the Tribunal does not implead the insurance Corn'‘pany to contest the clai in such cases it is open to an insurer to seek permissi n of the Tribunal to contest the claim on the ground av ilable to the insured or to a person against whom Va laim has been made If \_ permission is granted and the insureris allowed to contest the claim on merits n that case it is open to the insurer to file-an appeal a instan award on merits, if aggrieved. In any case ,where an application for permission is erroneously rejected the insurer can challenge only that part of order while tiling appeal on grounds specified in sub-s ction (2)- of Section 149 of 1988 Act.’ But such applica 'on for’permission has to be bona tide and med at the stage when the insured is required to lead his evid nce. So far as obtaining claimant is concerned, it is (“1%W) XI-HC—22 Wm mmhA.09 LL‘?§%%R W mw,m,%arag( Wm Wm ...t’.\:.z4.'..‘)2.9:.3.3'1’ um“ 200 m mmm WW§WW Ax» , aawm as regards negligence or contributow negligence of the offending vehicle. On perUsal of the records of the rTribunal, we find that no permission was applied for under Section 170 of the Act 1988 by the appellant to contest the claim of the respondent/claimants on merits and ino permission has been granted by the Tribunal tolthe appellants in'that regard. Mr. Agrawal further subm d that the Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 15% pe annum in default of payment of compensation within two months an such award of interest at the rate cf 15% per annum was not justified a d award of interest should have been limited to 9% per annum. We find on reading of the im ugned award of Tribunal that the rate eflinter’est on the quantum of comp nsation awarded was actually 9% per annum and it is only in case of de t of payment of compensation within two months, that the insurer is liabl to pay interest at the rate of 15% per annum. Thus, the ground taken b the insurer that the higher rate of interest at the rate of 15% per annum has been awarded on the compensation has no merit. ln view of the aforesaid deci on of the Supreme Court, this appeal i e f i is not maintainabie and the same is ccordingly dismissed. l.._/ Sd/T" Sd/ 1’ ,,L.C. BHAiooo Chief Justice l _ Judge / l. W (waist)