IN THE HI6H COURT OF JUbICATURE AT BILASPUR M.AFC1NO. /^5 OF ^OO^ ^ APPELLANT ^the Oriental Insurance Company l-€)7^^ Limited, Kuchrahi Chowk Raipur , ^ ^ through its bivisional Manager 7!^y ..A\p ..••' e,^ ^K^{^ Oriental Insurance Co. Divisional ^"^"fZ^' Office Geetan iali Bhawan main ^. ^"^: ^y /^ Ty ..€ RESPONbENTS: Claimants Vs ^"" ^': Office Geetanjali Bhawan main Road Korba C.G. 1. Samundribai W/o Late Bijendra Lal Singh, Aged about 30 years . 2. Somarsai S/o Lote Sordar Singh Aged 56 Years . 3. Phoolbasiya W/o Somarsai Aged about, 54 Years. 4. Rajendra Singh S/o Somarsai Aged about, 32Years . 5. Ku. Laleeta b/o Late Bijendra Lal Singh, Aged about 07 years . 6. Narendra Singh S/o Lote Bijendra Lal Singh, Aged about years . Respondent No. 5 and 6 are minor and they through there Natural Guardian Samundribai W/o Late Bijendra Lal Singh. All respondent are R/o Village Podiya, P.5. 6andhi Nagar, Th. Surajpur , District Sarguja C.G. ,7. Jawahar Lal Singh S/o Ramadhar Singh, Aged 42 years, R/o Chirmiri Gelhapani, P.0. Chirmiri, P.5. - Chirmiri, District - Koriya C6. $. Narayan Singh S/o Duhan Singh A9ed 45 years, R/o Chirmiri ^elhapani, P.0. Chirmiri, P.S. - Chirmiri, bistrict - Koriya C.G. • APPEAL U/S 173 OF TH6 MOTOR VEHICLES ACT A6AINST THE AWARD/ORDER bATED 27.'D8.2009 PASSE& BY, THE ADDITEONAL MOTOR ACCIbENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL FTC PRATAPPUR &ISTRICT SARGUJA PRESIbEb OV6R BY SHRI B.P. PANDEY IN C.T.NO.3^008. HJGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BSLASPyR SVI.A.CCS No.173of201© The Orsental insurance Company Limited. Versus RESPONDENTS APPELLANT (Insurer) Samundribaj and others. CLAIMANTS APPEAL UNDER SECTSON 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 Division Bench: iicm'ble Shri JM. Quddusi & Hon'ble Shrl N.K. Aaarwal. JJ. Present: Shri Ghanshyam Pate!, counsei on behaif of Shri Abhishek Sinha, counsel for the appelSant. None for the respondents. ORALORDER (Passed on 06th day of October, 2010) Per I.SVS. Quddusi. J. Heard. 2. The appeilant-lnsurance Company has fiied this appeai under Sectjon 173 ofthe Motor Vehicies Act, 1988 against the impugned award dated 27-08-200^, passed by the Addltional Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunai,(F.T.C.) Pratappur, District SurQuja (for short 'the Tribunai') in Claim Case No. 39/2008 awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,87,500/- to the daimants. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 18-07-2008, at about 5-00 PM. the deceased Bijendraiai, while going from Khandwakaia to Podiya along with one Hemant on his motorcycie bearing registration No. C.G. 15/CA- 5417, near Gudrudand Chowk, was dashed by the Truck bearing registration No. C.G.-16 ZC/0125 by rash and negiigent driving ofthe driver of the Truck, as a result of which the deceased Bijendralai died on the spot and a report about the incident was lodged against the driver of the offending Truck En the Pofice Station. 4. The ciaimants unfortunate parents, widov/, minor children and brother of the deceased have filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicies Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') claiming compensation of Rs.19,17,000/- for the death ofthe deceased in the accident. 5. The learned Tribunal on ciosed scrutiny of evidence led, material placed and the submjssions made, awarded an amount of Rs.7,87,500/- in favour of the claimants and against the respondents for its payment jointty and severaily. 6. Before enterjng into the merits of the case, jt appears that the appeilant/ insurance Company has fited the instant appea! chalienging the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. However, permission under Section 170 of the Act to contest the claim on all availabie defences was not granted to the appeilant-insurance Company and this fact has not been disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the appelianVInsurance Company. 7. Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Hational Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Nicolletta RohtagS and otheFs; reported in. 2003 (3) TAC 293 (SC), has held in para 31 of the judgment which is reproduced as under: "31. We have already held that uniess the conditions precedent specified in Section 170 of 1988 Act is satisfied, Insurance Company has no right of appeal to chaJlenge the award on merits 8. In view of the above settled positjon, the instant appeal fiied on behaif of the ' appeliant/lnsurance Company jn absence of the permission under Section 170 of the Act, 1988 is not maintainable and the same is dismissed as such. ——-— Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge Kvr