.f- <?-- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Coram : Hon'ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra & Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, JJ. Miscellaneous Appeal (C.) No.1191 of 2008 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Versus Dhansay alias Buttu and others. ORDER FOR CONSIDERATION ^RaosSe HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DHIRENDRA MISHRA Sd/- Post for Pronouncement pf order ^ -12-2008 Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge J^ lwr;; ^ <- .<2- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Coram : Hon'ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra & Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, JJ. Misc. Appeal (C) No.1191 of 2008 APPELLANT INSURER ICICI Lombard, General Insurance Company Limited, Registered office : ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra-Kurla, Complex, Mumbai, 400051, through its Manager (Legal), ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Lal Ganga Shopping Mall, 3rd Floor, G.E^Road, Raipu} (Chhattisgarh) versus ResDondent Claimant Onwer Driver 1. Dhansay Alias Buttu Yadav, son of Shri Ramlal Yadav, Aged about 23 years, R/o Gajra Colony, P.S. Banki Mongra, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba (Chhattisgarh). 2. Rajkumar Agrawal, Sarwamangla Construction, Mohasin Bhawan, Gurunanak Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3. Ajay Mishra, S/o Shri Satydev Mishra, aged about 27 years, R/o Village Modha, P.0. Songara, Pratappur, District Sugruja (Chhattisgarh) Presently residing at Rajkamar Agrawals S.C.C. Company Surakachar, P.S. Banki Mongra, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba (Chhattisgarh). Misc. Appeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicle_AcU 988 Present : Shri Sourabh Sharma, counsel for the appellant/insurer. ORDER (Passed on this 7[s>~ day of December, 2008) r The following order of the Court was passed by Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. Heard on admission. 2. In this appeal, as admitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/insurer, only the quantum of compensation of Rs.5,38,200/- awarded by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Katghora, Dist. Korba (henceforth 'the Tribunal') vide order dated 17.04.2008 passed in claim case No. 169/2007 is under challenge. 3. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant that permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') to contest the claim on grounds available to the owner of the vehicle was not granted to the appellant/insurer. 4. Under Section 149 (2) of the Act, an insurer is entitled to defend the action initiated by the claimants on grounds enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the Act and on no other ground. Thus, the insurer can avoid its liability only on the statutory defences, which are available to the insurer under Section 149 (2) of the Act. Section 170 of the Act carves an exception to this and upon satisfaction that there is collusion between the person making the claim and the person against whom the claim is made or that the person against whom the claim is made has failed to contest the claim, the Tribunal may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, direct that the insurer, who may be liable in respect of such claim, shall have, without prejudice to the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the Act, 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. h SSB7. '<!Si3&'3 Thus, it is only where conditions precedent embodied in Section 170 ofthe Act are satisfied, the insurer has a right to file appeal chaltenging the quantum of compensation on negligence awarded by the Tribunal. 5. In National Insurance Co. Ltd., Chandigarh vs. Nicoletta Rohtagi and others, AIR 2002 SC 3350, it was held that the right of appeal to the irisurer is not an inherent right or common law right, but is a statutory right. If the law provides that appeal can be filed on limited grounds, the grounds of challenge available to the insurer under Section 149 (2) of the Act cannot be enlarged except under Section 170 of the Act. }fcc- Therefore, it is not permissible for e»finsurer to file appeal questioning the quantum of compensation in the absence of permission granted by the Tribunal under Section 170 of the Act to contest the claim on all or any of the grounds that are available to the person against whom the claim has been made. 6. It is thus crystal clear that this appeal by the insurer challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not maintainable. The appeal is, therefore, liable to be and is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage. Sd/- DhirendraMishra Judge Dffip Raos -sa?- Judge