COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Mlsc.Aappea! (Cl N0. 347 OF 201Q APPELLANT MON-APPLICANT N0.3 Nationa! insurance Co. Ltd., Branch - Korba (Chhattisgarh) Through jts Dlvislonai Manager, Bllaspur Branch, Taha CompSex, Vyapar Vlhar Road, Bitaspur. Versus N0.1 (a) Sumar Slngh, aged 45 years, S/o ApDlicants/claimarits Jalram Singh Kanvv'ar, (b) Jamuna Baj W/b Sumar Slngh; aged 40 ysars (Both R/o .Vljjage - Ratija, Ramtaral, Dlplka, Katghora) RESPONDENT N0.2 Non-appiicarit ^o.t RESPONDENT N0. 3 Non-aRpiicsrtl No.2 Firatram Patel, S/o Bhagatram PateS, R/o Vjliage Pandripani, Korba (C.G.) ' SachJdanand h4ishra, S/o Tribhuvan Prasad Mishra, R/o Opposite Mission School; Tatakhar, Korba (C.G.) OWNE.R Present : Shri Q^mru! Aziz, counseJ for the appeilant. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHSCLES ACT.1888 ^Sinate Bench: Hon'bje Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.l ORAL ORDER (Passed on 5th day ofAprii, 2010) Thls is an appeai fijed by the Insurance Company against the award dated 18-11-2009 passed in Cjaim Case No.0398/2008 by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunai, Katghora, Distt. Korba (for short 'the Tribunal') whereby and :'\^^ whereunder an amount of Rs.2,90,000/- has been awarded in favour of the claimants for the death of their son aged about 20 years in the acddent along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of appEication, as against the appellant?lnsurance Company. 2. Undjsputedty, the appellant/!nsurance Company has not obtained permisston under Section 1 70 ofthe Motor Vehteles Act (for short 'the Act') chailenging quantum as weli as the fact of negligence. St is also not in dispute that the instant appeal has been preferred chaitenging the quantum part ofthe award. 3. it Is trite lavv that wlthout obtainjng permission under Section 170 of the Act, the Jnsurance Company can nof assail the award on the grounds which are availabie to a person agalnst whom the daim has been made. 4. The Supreme Court in case of Natssmai insurance Co. Ltd. Chandigarh v. Nicolletta Rohtagi and Other; reported in (2002) 7 SCC 456 has observed as under: 'We have aiready hejd that unless the condltions precedent specifled sn Sectlon 170 of 1988 Act are satisfied, an insurance company has no right of appeal to challenge the award on merits. However, jn a situatjon where there is a cojjusion between the daimants and the insured or the Insured does not contest the cialm and, further, the Tribunai does not implead the insurance company to contest the cialm, in such cases jt Is open to an insurer to seek permission of the tribunai to contest the clajm on the ground avajiable to the Insured or to a person against whom a ciaim has been made. If permlssion is granted and the Snsurer Is alSowed to contest the ciaim on merits; in that case it is open to the insurer to flle an appea! against an award on merits, if aggrieved. in any case where an appjicatjon for permlssjon is erroneously rejected the insurer can challenge oniy that part of the order whlle flllng appeai on grounds specified in sub-section (2) of Section 149 of 1988 Act. But such application for permlssion " .>^,, 3%» i ^ ^1»». /r has to be bona fide and fijed at the stage when the insured is required to iead his evidence. So far as obtatning compensation by fraud by the claimant is concerned, it is no jonger res Integra that fraud vitiates the entire proceeding and In such cases it is open to an jnsurer to apply to the Tribuna! for rectification of award." 5. In view of above, the appea! being not maintajnabie as the insurance Company has no right of appeal to chalienge the award assaiiing the amount awarded as compensation, Is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge h»iii—