gr i APPELLANT / N N-APPLICANT .3W RESPONDENT/APPLICANT :1 (”I f ”a, \ RESPONDENT/NON— APPLICANT NO.1. 2. RESPONDENT/ NON- d /APPLICANT NO.2. / [vi/1r I / .Dimion gengi‘a‘ ’ The On’ental Insurance Company, Divisional Office, Malviyanagar, Durg, Tah.& Dist: Durg (CG). Navneet Chaurasia _ /o Late Santkumar Chaurasia Aged 29 years Resident ofKdambari Nagar, Durg, Tahsil & Dist: Durg Chhattisgarh. K. Tambi S/o GC Koshy, Aged about 52 years, Resident of Santoshi Para, Ward No. l4, Bhanu Pratappur, Thana ~ Bhanupratappur, Dist : Kanker (Chhattisgarh) — Driver. /3. (, Ms/Raipur Bus Service, Ganj Para, Durg, Tahsil &v District: Durg (CG). (Owner of Bus) r. - VERSUS - ~‘- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR. MA No. Wé OF 2006 GD 3 OF THE MOTO 7 R (2) v‘ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR I M. A. No. 716 of 2006 Appellant The Oriental Insurance Company Versus Respondents Navneet Chaurasia 85 others APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 DB: Hon’ble Shri I. M. Quddusi & . Hon’ble Shri Prashant Kurnar Mishra, JJ Shri Shailendra Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents. ORDER (Oral) ( Passed on this 7th day of January, 2011 ) Per I. M. Quddusi, J. Heard. ‘ The instant appeal arises from the award dated 10.3.2006, passed by the 9th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Durg, in Claim Case No. 129/2005 (old number 16/2005 ). On a claim petition filed by the respondent No. l/claimant for the injuries sustained by him in an accident on 6.11.2004, due’to the rash and negligent driving of the non-applicant No. 1 by Bus, bearing registration No. C.G. O7/ZA— 0165, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 3,75,000/— as compensation with 6% simple interest from the date of the application. Being aggrieved, the appellant insurance company has filed the instant appeal on the ground of quantum. Indisputably,‘ the appellant - Insurance Company has not obtained the permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which reads-as under : “170. Impleading insurer in certain cases. Where in the course of any inquiry, the Claims Tribunal is satisfied that — (a) there is collusion between the person making the claim and the person against whom the claim is made, or (b) the person against whom the claim is made has failed to contest the claim, . it may, for reasons to be fecordea in writing, direct that e insurer Who may be liable in respect of such claim, shall be impleaded as a party to the proceeding and the insurer so impleaded shall thereupOn have, Without prejudice to the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of section 149, the right to contest the claim on all or any of the grounds that are available to the person against Whom the claim has been made.” Hon’ble Apex Court in National :Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nicolletta Rohtagi and others i003 (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. In View of‘the above settled position of law, the instant appeal on behalf of the appellant Insurance Company, in absence of permission under Section 170 of the Act, 1988, is not maintainable and the same is dismissed No order as to costs. i Sdl- l \ Sd/- '-M-QUddUSi l Prashant kumar Mishra Judge ‘ v Judge