IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. FAO No.4407/2009(O&M). Date of Decision: 3.9.2009. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd. ..........Appellant. Versus Ranjeet Singh and others. ..........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr.Subhash Goyal,Advocate for the appellant- Insurance Company. 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? JASWANT SINGH,J.(Oral). CM No.20799-CII/2009. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 8 days in filing the appeal is condoned. FAO No.4407/2009. This order will dispose of two appeals bearing FAO Nos. 4407 and 4408 of 2009 filed by the appellant-Insurance Company as both these appeals are directed against the common award dated 29.4.2009 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, FAO No.4407/2009(O&M). 2 Jagadhari (for short the Tribunal) allowing claim petition nos.19 and 20 of 2007/2008 and granting compensation to the claimants/respondents on account of death of Smt.Leela Devi (wife of respondent no.1 Ranjeet Singh and mother of respondent no.2 Ashok Kumar) and Baldev Singh(son of respondent no.1 and brother of respondent no.2) in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 18.10.2007 involving the offending vehicle- a truck, insured by the appellant Insurance Company. The only ground on which challenge has been laid to the impugned award is the quantum of compensation. It is conceded position that the appellant-Insurance Company has not obtained permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 (for short the Act) from the learned Tribunal. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to dispute that it is well settled that the appeal filed by the insurance company will be maintainable only on the ground of violation of Section 149(2)of the Act and on other grounds only when it has obtained permission under Section 170 of the Act from the learned Tribunal. In the absence of appellant Insurance Company having obtained permission under Section 170 of the Act, the appeals are not maintainable and hence this Court cannot proceed any further in the matter to determine as to what should have been the appropriate compensation. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.Mannakatti and others v. FAO No.4407/2009(O&M). 3 M.Subramanian and another 2006(4) RCR (Civil) 326. Accordingly, both these appeals alongwith applications for staying the operation/execution of the impugned award are dismissed. The Registry is directed to remit the statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the appellant in each appeal to the learned Tribunal for onwards disbursement to the claimants/respondents. 3.9.2009 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge