•^ .<*>. IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BIIASPUR Mi^c. Appeal No, APPELLANT ^efendant No.3 Division Barwb /0?6 / 2005 The Inctla As^urance Compaxxy Ltcl^ / -Ver^us - RESPONDENT rClaiman.t No. 1 EESPQNDENT Claimatit No.2 RESPONDENT ^Cleumant No.3 RESPONDENT No.4 RESPQWDENT ^laimant No.; > 9- 3.Y ^ ''•519C-4 —^^ ^!^--" ^<...- 1 ^'"" ^" RESPONDENT Defendmit No. 1 6. ^ RESPONDENT Defexi^ant No.2 /' Rajendra Nagar Chowk, Bila^pur, Throughite Branch Manager^ Bilaspur (C.O.). Smt Saiito^lii Bai, 28 yem^, Wd/ o Ashwam Singjli, Caste ~ Thakur. Sliid Chedi Siiigli., 53 yeai^, 8/ o Jhammao. Smgh Thakur. QintAtata Bai, 48 years, W/ o Chedi Singh Thakur. Sliri Koinal, 6 yearSy S/ o AshwaniSio.gh. Shii Jaish»4 years, No. 4 and 5 are miiior, ttaroiigh inother Sm.t. Santoshi Bai Wd/ o AshwaEsi Sin.gh Thalcur. A31 are R/oViSlage- Hafhkera, Post -Babli, P.S. Patharia, Tahsil-MungeU, District- Bilaspur (C.G.). Shri Kamlesh Kumar^ 38 years, S/ o Shri BhaKla Mamkpuri, Occupation ~ Driver, R/o Mahavir Ward, Near Talab, Bhatapara City, District- Raipur (C.G.). M/s Mahadeo Tran^port Service, Mohd. Hashan Khaa, 48 yeai's, S/ o AU. Ahined Khan, Occupation- bus owiier,, In front ofAnand Hotel» uear ShivTaUde^, BUa^pur (C.G.). •4|-<&:w»^^y ^ A. RESPQNDEm /Defendant No.4 RESPONDENT D^endant No.5 RESPONDENT D^fendaat No.6 9. Sliri Molid. Humaun,, 50 yeors,, Q/ o Abdul Reliniaa^ Occupation- Drivei\ R/ o BEanpuriy Raipur (C.G.). Shri Badri Pra^ad Dubey^ 43 years^ S/oShriK. L. Dubey, R/o BUaspiir Road Kaipur, Bhaiipuri, District- Raipur (C.G.). Uiiited Isidia Insuraiice Qginpaiiy Ltd. Throzigh ite Branch Maiiager, Tura Coinplex, G. E. Road, Power House, Bhilai, District - Durg (C.G.). 10./ $• \^.-- APPEAL UNDER SECTIOS 173 OF tSE MOTOR •VEmCLBS ACT. 1988 <\° HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR M.A. No. 1096 of 2005 Appellant The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Versus Respondents Smt. Santoshi Bai & others APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTQR VEHICLE8 ACT, 1988 DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice I. M. Quddusi & Hon'ble Shri Justice G. Minhajuddin, JJ Shri Ashish Beck, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Avinash Mishra, Advocate for the respondents No. 1 to 5. Shri H. B. Aganval, Senior Advocate with Ms Meera Jayaswal, Advocate for the other respondent No.IO. ^ORDER (Oral) ( Passed on this 13th day of September, 2011 ) Per I. M. Quddusi, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/New India Assurance Company on the question of quantum as well as contributory negligence, which is the part of the quantum, against the award dated 31.3.2005, passed by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Mungeli, District - Bilaspur, in Claim Case No. 41/2004, awarding a total amount of Rs. 6,98,200/- as T"- ' compensation, holding the non-applicants No. 1 to 3 jointly and severally liable to pay the amount bf compensadon. 2. Brief facts, in nutshell, are that in the intervrening night of 1st and 2nd June, 2003 deceased Ashwani Singh Thakur was returning to Baloda Bazar by the bus, bearing registration No. C.G. 10-ZA/0410, which was owned by the non-applicant No.2. On the way, at about 3.00 a.m., near village Kirna, due to rash and negligent driving by the non-applicant No.l the bus dashed to a road side truck, from the ^'.'T ^" ^ -...,.^./ --^' ^\ back portion, which was stationary. As a result of that accident Ashwani Singh Thakur- died. The dependents/legal heirs of the deceased filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for award of a total compensation ofRs, 28,00,OOO/- under various heads. Learned Claims Tribunal, having regard to the facts situation and the evidence on record awarded a total sum of Rs. 6,98,200/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, holding the non-applicants No. 1 to 3, including the present appellant as liable to pay the amount ofcompensation. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records and found that there is no permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 granted to the appellant - Insurance Company. Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Conipany Ltd. Vs. Nicolletta Rohtagi and others 2003 (3) TAC 293 (SC) has held that unless the conditions precedent specified in Section 170 of 1988 Act is satisfied, Insurance Company has no right of appeal to challenge the award on merits. Therefore, the instant appeal is not maintainable in respect of quantum in absence of the permission. In view of the above, we do not find any force in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant to interfere with the impugned award pa^sed by the Claims Tribunal. The appeal deserves to be and is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs. Sd/- LM. Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge Thakur