-x.^,^- ^/v-^A^ ^l^'-l- IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH AT BU-ASPURIC.G.} M.A. (C) N0.^'^^-of2010 o/i^ ions.^ APPELLANT National v Insurance Company Limited, through Branch Manager, , Liii^uyii LJI cii i\-/i i ivioit tay^i ^ J-^l^ National . Insurance Company Limited, Chourasia Complex, Sinaria ^•^^"^y' l^"it "^'-^ Complex, Chowk, Riwa Road, Satna, District- Satna(M.P.) '^..-••' VERSUS RESPONDENTS :1. Sanat Ram, S/o Bodhiram, aged 1^ c- about 65 years, Caste-Kanwar, R/o Village-Bhendra, Tahsii-Gharghoda. District-Raigarh (C.G.) ^ (Claimant) 2. Sadhmati, W/o Sanat Rarn, aged • about 60 years, Caste-Kanwar, R/o Village-Bhendra, Tahsil-Gharghoda, District-Raigarh (C.G.) (Claimant) <T <> ^ 3. Samari Bai, W/o Late Tjharu, aqed about 35 years, Caste-Kanwar, R./o Village-Bhendra, Tahsii-Gharghoda' District-Raigarh (C.G.) (Ciaimant) 4. Raghvendra Singh Parihar, S/o Ravindra Bali Singh Parihar,aged about 55 years, Caste-Parihar, R/'o Village-Birhuli, Post-Urnrahat (Nagaud), District-Satna (M.P.) Driver, R/o Ranbhatha, P.S.-Pusaur, Tahsil & District-Raigarh (C.G.) CLAIM BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AWARD AMOUNT Rs. 13,00,000/- Rs. 4,25,0007- • VALUATION OF THE PRESENT APPEAL: Rs. 4,25,000/~ HIGHCCHJRTOPCHHATTlSG^^^Blt^P^ m^.AD ^l(^^Q.^^€^'^m }-^- APPiLLXNT RESPONDENTS Nationai Ihsur&nce Company Limited . Versus^^'.'Ys.\~ Sariat Ratn and Mere. APREALUNDERSEGTiG?Nl736R-FHEMOTORVEH!CLESACT .^':1S88^'^.:...::.^^7':'^~——~ DB: HonWe^^usti^ Hon'bleShri^usti^R.L.Jhartwar; PjSserrt ^ ShriO^m^ :ShnM.KSinha,^unsejfQrrespor|den^^ ORALORDER j(Pass^ori16mday<rfNcwem^ : Per.N.K.'-Aaarv^l..J..':'.'.;;;:',,^.,^.^ This is irteurer'^ appeal flted agaW^W 25-11-2009^ p^ed by tl^ Foutth ^ddjtl^^ Claims ^nbunal, F.TJS. Ralgarh (for^ho^ ClaimOaseNo. 5172008, awardlngR^^ Gompensation in favoyr of the dawTian .I ~'.' : '"''.1 •."•'•'••"•:.''•"1\;. '•' " • •:';.:'": ll'->. appedant/lnsuranceCompanyJjablefbritspaymerrt. 2. Brieffacts of thecasearethat on 30-69-2004, Tiharu Ram Rathia (since deceased) was workjng as MechanEc. WhiEe repairing the tractor bearing registration No. N.P. 19-D/4988 and while taking triaj, the said tractor being beyond controj and fell down in the canaj, as a result ofwhjchhesuccumbedtothe irtjuriessustainedrnthesaidaccjdent. 2\ 3. The cjajmants. unfortunate pare^^ cleceasedhavefiledapetitictnbefbretheTribunaluncjerSeGtson 163^ oftheMotorVehjcJesAct, 1988^ claiming total cbmpensation of Rs. 13,00,000/- under various :'heads.', '•/ ! ,,,•':,1:1'' , • •; •;;1,-.,.. :. ':?.;1:.,- '.-';:l:i-' :1.'.':<'1:1' "1 4. The jearned Tnbunai on^^^^c^ Jed, materia! placed and sybmissions made by ^ awarded a sui-n of 4,25;000/- along with Interest @ 6% per annum In favour pf the claimants and las against the appelJant/lnsurance Company. I ;'l'':-:':.,.-::./. 5. Learned coynsel forthe appeHantwouldiconteFKJthatthe annual inconrte of the deceased, as pleaded was Rs.72,CX)0/- perannum.AsperSecondSchedule,clajmpetiti<3nflJedunder Section 163-A pfttie Act is maintainable oniy in|case th& ihcome of the deceased or injured is up to Rs.4Q,OOQ/- per ahnum and lnviewofabove,theclatmpetitionitseIfisnotSmatnNnable,lt was furthercontendedthatfheleamedTribunalfaJIedtodecide the appljcation filed by the appeilant under Section 170; of the Act fbr obtaining permission t6 defendthe case on ali^ssues, and, therefore,the appellant isftot prohibited to filethe instant appealchallengingquantumofcompensatJon.l 6. V^ have heard; tearned counsel for the parties and perusedtheawardimpugnedandtherecordsofttheTribynaI. 7. The iearned Tribtjnal assesseci the fercome^ o^ the deceased as Rs.36,OQQ/- per annum^^^^^^ Rs.40,000/-. T'herefore, in Qurview^heassessedincome^^^^^ i.1i, less than Rs.40,000/- perannum,the eiaim petltion file^^ Sectjon 163^ pf the Act is maintajnable and the a^ raised isdevojdofmerit. 8. So far as the challenge jn the instarit appeal to the quantum Qfcompensation isconcerned, theiappellant has not pressed its application filed before the learned Tribunal under SectJon170oftheAct.ltwasneitherrejectednorati thus, in ourconsidered opiniori, in the absence ofany order of the Tribunal ^ranting pr refusing permission s|inder Section 170 of the Act,the appellant cannot be permittect to challenge the award on thequestionofquantum.Hon'bJejtheApexCourtin ^rT^terQfNaffonaLfnsuranceCo.LtfL/Chamfiga^^v^^^ Nicolletta Rofttefltf and CWrers; reported in ^2002) 7 SOC 4$6 has observed as under: i "We have already held that unless the cpnditjons precedent specified |n Section 170of1988Actaresatisfled,an}insurance company has no right of appeal to chailenge the awarcl on merits. 1 However, in a situation where there i& a collusion between the ciaimants and the jnsured or thejnsureddoesnotcohtesttjielciaimand, further, the Tribunal does not in|ip!ead the insurance companytQ cpntestthjeclaim, in such cases jt is open to an insurer to s^ek permission of the tribunai to oontest the clajm onthe ground avajlable to the insured or to a person agajnst whom ajclaim has been made. If permission ^ the insurer is allowed to contest the claim on merits, in that case it is open to the jnsurer to file an appeal against an award on merits, ifaggrieved. in anycase where an applteation fpr permission is erroneoysly rejected the insurercan chalJengeonlythat part of the order while filing^^ groynds specified jn Sub-sectlon ^2) <?f Section 149 of 1988 Act.Butsuch IIS lil!Sll Ll. ^ applicatjon fpr permissjon has t& be bona fide and filed at the stage when the insured js required tolead hisevidence. So far^^a^ obtaining compensation by fraud by the claimant is concemed, it is no Ibnger T®S integra that fraud vitiates the enfire proceeding and in such cases it js open to ari insurer t6 apply to Vne Tribunal for rectification o^award." 9. Thus, the appeai preferred bytheappeJlant being devoid of substance 1s liable to be and is hereby di^mjssed. No order astocosts. Kw Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge {•