toajl. HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BSLASPUR D8VISION BENCH CQRAM: HON^BLE SHRi RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRS SUNSL KUMAR SINHA, J. 3iHldS^4iul 3i<i^(i* WW-4 3Hi^^rra?-2 1.A. No. 168 of 2006 ^F^ ^^"H ^fi^ W^g. ^RT/^F^ ? {cf5 (cto) ^n? 45!^(?|chH fte^Nt ^PK, Rdl'9^ f^rar Rdi'H^ (^.Tr.) WT^ ^ STIW? '^S^ f^ STTg 50 WcT, N^T ^?K, tef ter ^f (^.TT.) 1*<» ^iwfrPI 3jj^q4)<ju| ^f^. 1^3 1 ^f BTcKR 3ffW3[ ^. ^ ^O ?icKR 3TI^ 58 ^TcT fePR ??>fc, S^? ^.i^ft.^. f^f^r 2 ^Wt ^fl^lchi ^ld^l^i TTfN 4t ^T gld^K 3{Tg 55 ^TTcT, 3 y^ ^fto ^TcRR 3ffg 28 ^TRT, 5^ ^cT SM4N W ^cTRft ^-247, ^iivil^^l^ ^FR ^-2 Rdi'9^ cr?^T ? 1y|cTT Rdl^l^ ^.'H'. •3j<1|^4) ^TR?-1, 4 ^^l?1(<!ti 'H^Fft •3iIW? -^ T^T.1^'. ^Fft f^HT ^ (^ton) ^cTi^ f^pft ^r.an^.^ft.-io, TRW?y tor i1f (^'.7T.) ^cR cTi^T ^ STW? ej^tldld 3T^ 42 WcT, ^t^, ^t'^citvi zmcNt, ^cir, ta^ tor ^f 3P?tc[ SfcP'f^r WCT 173 ^Tte'? ^cT 1i^ Present: Shri Shreekumar AgrawaE, learned Senior Counse! wlth Shri Anand Gupta, learned counsel for the appeilants. None for respondents No. 1 to 3 though served. Shri Sanjeev Banjare, learned counsel for respondent No.4 ^. ORDER ^ (22na Juiy, 2009) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Learned counsel for the parties are heard on M.C.P.208/2006, a petition for condonation of the deiay in filing appesE. 2) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counse! for the parties; the grounds taken in the petition; the circumstances wherein the appellants initialty filed a revision petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and after its dismissal vide order dated 1 4.03.2005, the present appeal was fiied on 12.04.2005, we are satisfied that the appellants have succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. 3) M.C.P.No.208/2006, therefore, is aliowed and the deiay in filing the appea! is hereby condoned. 4) Learned counsel for the parties are heard on the question of maintainability ofthe appeal. 5) The present appeal has been filed jointly by appellant No.1 National Insurance Company Limited and appellant No.2 Jagjeet Singh, the insurer and the owner of the offending vehicle Tractor against the impugned award dated 18-01-2000, passed by the Sixth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Btlaspur in Claim Case No. 45/1999, whereby the appellants were directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,96,000/- as compensation to the claimants <<3, along with interest @ 1 2% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition tili the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Shreekumar AgrawaE, learned Senior counsel for the appellants submitted that the Insurance Company was not granted permission under Sectlon 1 70 of the Motor Vehicles Act to contest the claim on all availabie defences; the insurer of the offending vehic!e Tractor has already deposited the entire amount of compensatlon awarded by the Tribunai along with interest due thereon in satisfaction of the impugned award before the TribunaE. 7) Shri Shreekumar Agrawa!, learned Senior Counsel for the appeilants could not dispute that in view of the dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of Narendra Kumar Vs. Yarenissa, reported in 1998 ACJ 244 (SC) and Chinnama George & others Vs. N.K. Raju & another, reported in 2000 ACJ 77 and the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Nationa! insurance Co. Ltd. and another Vs. Smt. Shankuntala Agrawal & others, reported In (2) CGU -544, a joint appeal by the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle is not maintainable. 8) In this view of the matter, the present appeal filed jointly by the insurer and owner of the offending vehicle Tractor in view of the above-mentioned dicta of the Apex Court is not maintainable. The appeal, therefore, is !iable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed as not malntainable. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- Sunil KumarSinha Judge subbu