1 fa318-99.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.318 OF 1999 Krishna Arjun Salvi and anr. ..Appellant Vs Theresa John Lopes and ors. ..Respondents -- Mr.M.B.Kotak, for appellants. Mr.Hegde, for respondent no.1. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 13 th DECEMBER, 2010 JUDGMENT: Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The first appellant is the insured and second appellant is the insurer of the vehicle. 2] The challenge is to the award made by the Motor Accident Claims tribunal in a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as “the said Act”). 3] This is a case where the second appellant insurer had not pleaded any defence covered by Sub-Section 2 of Section 149 of the said Act. 2 fa318-99.sxw Moreover, the first appellant contested the claim petition by filing a written statement and, thus, there was no leave granted under Section 170 of the said Act. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nicolletta Rohtagi and others [2002 (7) SCC 456], the appeal at the instance of second appellant is not maintainable in law. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of R.Mannakatti and another Vs. M.Subramanian and another [2005 (11)SCC389], the composite appeal filed by the second appellant insured along with the insurer is not maintainable. Only on the ground that the appeal is not maintainable, the same is dismissed with no order as to the costs. If any statutory amount deposited under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is pending in this Court, the same be refunded to the appellant along with interest accrued thereon. [A.S.OKA, J]