THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2883 of 2003 Date:18.11.2010 Between: The New India Assurance Company Limited ..... Appellant AND Giri Poshetty and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Dr. Muddu Vijai Counsel for Respondents: Sri P. Radhive Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the New India Assurance Company Limited arises out of the award dated 22.04.2002 in O.P.No.397 of 2000 on the file of the Court of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Nizamabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’). One Giri Sangeetha, daughter of respondent Nos.1 and 2, aged 9 years, died in a motor accident, which has taken place on 04.02.2000 at 11.00 a.m. at Boigally, Kubdeer Village and Mandal, Adilabad District. The tractor and trailor, which caused the accident, were insured with the appellant. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 claimed Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,50,000/-. At the hearing, Dr. Muddu Vijai, the learned counsel for the appellant, advanced two contentions; (1) that the driver had no driving licence and (2) that the quantum of compensation awarded is excessive. As regards the first contention of the learned counsel, he has submitted that Ex.A-2 certified copy of the charge sheet mentioned that the driver had no driving licence. The learned counsel has, however, conceded that neither a plea to this effect was raised by the appellant before the Tribunal nor an issue was framed by the Tribunal in this regard. In my opinion, unless the pleading is raised and an issue is framed, it is not permissible for the appellant to raise this ground for the first time in this appeal. Therefore, this contention is rejected. With respect to the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the quantum of compensation is on a high side, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 has stated that the appellant has not taken permission of the Tribunal to raise the issue of quantum of compensation under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’). I n National Insurance Company Limited vs. Nicolletta Rohtagi[1], the Apex Court held that unless an order is passed by the Tribunal permitting the insurer to avail of the grounds available to the insured or any other person against whom a claim has been made on being satisfied of the conditions specified in Section 170 of the Act, it is not permissible to the insurer to contest the claim on the grounds which are available to the insured or to a person against whom a claim has been made. In the light of this settled proposition of law, the appellant is not entitled to question the quantum of compensation as it has failed to obtain permission from the Tribunal under Section 170 of the Act. For the aforementioned reasons, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the C.M.A., interim order dated 12.08.2003 in C.M.A.M.P.No.17374 of 2003 is vacated and C.M.A.M.P.Nos.17374 of 2003 and 4659 of 2005 are dismissed as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 18th November, 2010 GHN [1] AIR 2002 SC 3350