THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No.1563 of 2003 JUDGMENT: The appellant-United India Insurance Company Limited filed this appeal questioning the quantum of compensation awarded to respondents 1 and 2 vide award, dated 27.11.2002, in O.P.No.3 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda, filed claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- on account of the death of the deceased Baikani Venkateswarlu while undergoing treatment for the injuries sustained by him in the accident occurred on 02.05.1998 at 10.30 PM when he was boarding the tipper bearing No.APL 6568 after cleared off the stones on the road on the instructions of its driver, he fell down due to rash and negligent driving of the said driver and the tipper ran over him. The second respondent opposed the same. The Tribunal having held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of tipper, awarded an amount of Rs.1,22,000/- as compensation to the claimants. Aggrieved by the said compensation, the appellant-Insurance Company preferred this appeal. 2 . Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2-claimants. 3. Though the Insurance Company raised several grounds questioning the quantum of compensation, the fact remains that it had not obtained permission of the Tribunal under Section 170 of the Act to contest the matter on merits. The law is well settled that the Insurance Company should file an application under Section 170 of the Act seeking leave of the Tribunal to contest the matter on merits. I n NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHANDIGARH v. NICOLLETTA ROHTAGI[1] the Apex Court held as under: “In Shankarayya v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. (1998) 3 SCC 140 it was held that an insurance company when impleaded as a party by the Court can be permitted to contest the proceedings on merits only if the conditions precedent mentioned in Section 170 are found to be satisfied and for that purpose the insurance company has to obtain an order in writing from the Tribunal and which should be a reasoned order by the Tribunal. Unless this procedure is followed, the insurance company cannot have a wider defence on merits than what is available to it by way of statutory defences. In absence of the existence of the conditions precedent mentioned in Section 170, the insurance company was not entitled to file an appeal on merits questioning the quantum of compensation”. In view of the said decision, the Insurance Company, which failed to obtain permission of the Tribunal under Section 170 of the Act, to contest the matter on merits, is not entitled to prefer the appeal questioning the quantum of compensation. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. 4. Accordingly, the C.M.A. is dismissed as not maintainable. No costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:29.07.2010 sj [1] (2002) 7 SCC 456