s; IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUbICATURE AT BILASPUR ?AP i-^NT (Insurer) ..•••-"Sf^"' •.^•••yw ^.^. '^•- RESPOMDENTS: Claimants M. A r C 1 N0. ^^ / OF^Q^^r The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Kuchrohi Chowk Raipur , through its Divisional Manager Oriental Insurance Co. bivisional Office Geetanjali Bhawan main Road Korba C.&, ?i^i^fn- R. Vs 1. Indrawati Devi W/o Late Hemant, Aged about 28 years . 2. Kanhai Ram S/o Late Bagholan Aged 58 Years . 3. Jhingo Bai W/o Kanhai Aged about, 56Years . 4. Shiv pratap Singh S/o late Hemant Aged about, 12 Years . 5. Tej Pratap Singh D/o Late Hemat, Aged about 10 years . 6. Sarita Kumari S/o Late Hemant, Aged about 07 years . 7. Goutam Singh S/o Late Hemant Aged about 04 Years. Respondent No.4 to 7 are minor and they through there Natural Guardian Indrawati Devi W/o Late Hemant. All respondent are R/o Village Podiya, P.S. Gandhi Nagar, Th. Surajpur , District Sorguja C.G. 8. Jawahar Lal Singh S/o Ramadhar Singh, Aged 42 years, R/o Chirmir'i Gelhapani, P.0. Chirmiri, P.S. - l&fe ® Chirmiri, District - Koriya C.G. 9. Narayan Singh S/o buhan Singh Aged 45 years, R/o Chirmiri Gethapani, P.0. Chirmiri, P.S. - Chirmiri, District - Koriya C.G. APPEAL U/S 173 OF THE MOTOR V6HICLES ACT AGAINST THE AWARD/ORDER DATED 27.08.2009 PASSEb BY. THE AbbITIONAL MOTOR ACCIbENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL FTC PRATAPPUR DISTRICT SARGUJA PRESIDEb OVER BY SHRI B.P. PANbEY IN C.T.NO.40/2008. £ APPELLANT {Insyrei) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH AT BSLASPUR M.A.iCl No. 174 of 201 O The Orienta! Insurance Company Limlted. Versus Indrawati Devi and others. RESPONDENTS CLAiSVIANTS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 Division Bench: Hon'bie Shri I.M. Quddusi& Hon'bie Shri N.K. Aaanval. JJ. Present: Shri Ghanshyam Patel, counsel pn behalf of Shri Abhishek Sinha, counsel for the appellant. None for the respondents. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 07th day of October, 2010) Per S.M. Quddusi. J. Heard. 2. The appellant-insurance Company has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the impugned award dated 27-08-2009, passed by the Additional Motor Accident CJaims Tribunai,(F.T.C.) Pratappur, District Surguja (for short 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 40/2008 awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,32,500/- to the claimants. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 18-07-2008, at about 5-00 P.M. the deceased Hemant while going from Khandwakala to Podlya aiong with one ByendraiaJ on motorcycle bearing registration No. C.G. 15/CA-5417, near Gudrudand Chowk, was dashed by the Truck bearing registratlon No. C.G.-16 ZC/0125 by rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Truck, as a resuit of which the deceased Hemant dled on the spot and a repori; about the jncident was lodged against the driver of the offending Truck in the Police Station. 4. The claimants unfortunate parente, widow, minor children of the deceased have filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') claiming .^,^7 ^ compensation of Rs.20,23,000/- for the death of the deceased in the accident. 5. The learned Tribunal on closed scrutiny of evidence led, material placed and the submissjons made, awarded an amount of Rs.8,32,500/- in favour of the daimants and against the respondents for its payment jointly and severalfy. 6. Before entering into the merits of the case, it appears that the appeltant/ Insurance Company has filed fhe jnstant appeal chalienging the quantum of compensatjon awarded by the iearned Tribunai. However, permjsston under Section 170 ofthe Act to contest the claim on all available defences was not granted to the appellant-lnsurance Company and this fact has not been disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/lnsurance Company. 7. Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Nlcolletfa Rohtagi and others; reported in 2003 (3) TAC 293 (SC), has held in para 31 of the judgment whjch is reproduced as under: "31. We have already heid that uniess the conditjons precedent specified in Section 170 of 1988 Act is satisfied, jnsurance Company has no right of appeal to challenge the award on merits............." 8. In view of the above settled positjon, the instant appeal fjted on behaff ofthe appellant/lnsurance Company In absence of the permission under Section 170 of the Act, 1988 is not maintainable and the same is dismissed as such. Sd/- LM.Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge Kvr