THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CMA No.2662 of 2004 Judgment : Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance company and the learned counsel the respondent-claimant. Perused the impugned award passed by the Tribunal. 2. The claimant-1st respondent herein filed OP No.62 of 1998 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Addl. District Judge, Hindupur, seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident that occurred on 23-8-1997 at about 5-30 am near Muktapuram bus stand. PW-1 is the victim who categorically deposed that he met with the accident on 23-8-1997 at 5-30 am involving lorry bearing No.APD 8440, in which the claimant was travelling along with his rice bags and another lorry bearing No.TN 04D 6858 in an head on collision. The claimant himself was examined as PW-1. PW-2 eye witness to the accident narrated the manner in which the accident occurred. Based on the evidence of PWs-1 and PW-2 and Ex.A-1 FIR and Ex.A-3 report of the MVI, the Tribunal held that the accident due to the rash and negligent driving of both the lorry in question by its drivers. The Tribunal considering the age, income and the injuries sustained by the claimant granted a sum of Rs.1,72,800/- as against the claim of Rs.2,00,000/-. 3. Inasmuch as the finding of the Tribunal is to the effect that both the drivers of the lorries in question are at fault for causing accident, the compensation granted by the Tribunal shall have to be paid by the insurance companies of both the accident lorries and they are jointly and severally liable to be pay the compensation to the claimant. 4. The appellant-insurance company cannot question the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal, inasmuch as it has not obtained permission as required under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act and appeal is not maintainable in view of the ratio laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v NICOLLETTA ROHTAGI ( (AIR 2002 SUPREME COURT 3350 ). 5. Since the insurance company has not obtained the permission, following the decision of the Supreme Court in NICOLLETTA ROHTAGI’s case ( supra) and for the reasons given therein, this appeal is dismissed, however subject to the direction given above as regards the liability to pay the compensation by the insurance company of both the lorries in question jointly and severally. No costs. ___________________ Ghulam Mohammed, J Dated: 27-1-11 Nrg. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CMA No.2662 of 2004 27-1-11