THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A C.M.A.No.1433 of 2006 JUDGMENT: Questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy (for short ‘the Tribunal) in O.P.No.400 of 2001, dated 23.11.2004, the appellant-United India Insurance Company Limited filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’). 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 04.08.2000 at about 8.15 PM, while the first respondent/claimant was going on a scooter bearing No.ADT 9706 as pillion rider and when reached near I.B.Cross Roads, Sangareddy, auto bearing No.ADT-9706, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the scooter, due to which, the petitioner fell down and sustained serious injuries besides minor injuries to the rider of the scooter. The petitioner was shifted to Government Hospital, Sangareddy, wherein it was diagnosed that he sustained fracture of right patella. Thereafter, he took Ayurvedic treatment from one Shivaiah at Pitlam village and another Ramanna at Jhansilingapur village. The Police, Sangareddy registered a case in Crime No.144 of 2000 under Section 338 IPC against the driver of the said auto. Because of the accident, the petitioner, who is an Advocate, absented to his duties for about three months and sustained loss of earnings. Hence, he filed the above said O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.3,54,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation. 3. The second respondent herein filed counter before the Tribunal denying the averments made in the petition and stated that he was not the owner of the said auto, which was sold to one Abdul Raheem on 18.08.1999 and that said Abdul Raheem is necessary party to the claim. The appellant-insurance company filed counter denying the manner of accident and stated that the claim is excessive. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues; 1. Whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto bearing No.ADT 9706? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation, if so, what amount and from which of the respondents? 3. To what relief? 5. On behalf of the claimant, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. On behalf of the appellant and the second respondent, no evidence was adduced and no document was marked. 6. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of auto. With regard to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.20,000/- for shock, pain and loss of amenities of life, Rs.50,000/- for the fracture injury, Rs.1,00,000/- for future loss of earnings and Rs.20,000.-for medical, transportation, extra- nourishment. In total, awarded an amount of Rs.1,90,000/- towards compensation to the claimant. Aggrieved by the said quantum of compensation, the appellant-Insurance Company preferred this appeal. 7. Though the Insurance Company raised several grounds questioning the quantum of compensation, the fact remains that it had not obtained permission of the Tribunal under Section 170 of the Act to contest the matter on merits. The law is well settled that the Insurance Company should file an application under Section 170 of the Act seeking leave of the Tribunal to contest the matter on merits. I n NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHANDIGARH v. NICOLLETTA ROHTAGI[1] the Apex Court held as under: “In Shankarayya v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. (1998) 3 SCC 140 it was held that an insurance company when impleaded as a party by the Court can be permitted to contest the proceedings on merits only if the conditions precedent mentioned in Section 170 are found to be satisfied and for that purpose the insurance company has to obtain an order in writing from the Tribunal and which should be a reasoned order by the Tribunal. Unless this procedure is followed, the insurance company cannot have a wider defence on merits than what is available to it by way of statutory defences. In absence of the existence of the conditions precedent mentioned in Section 170, the insurance company was not entitled to file an appeal on merits questioning the quantum of compensation”. In view of the said decision, the Insurance Company, which failed to obtain permission of the Tribunal under Section 170 of the Act, to contest the matter on merits, is not entitled to prefer the appeal questioning the quantum of compensation. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. 9. Accordingly, the C.M.A. is dismissed as not maintainable. No costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:17.06.2010 sj [1] (2002) 7 SCC 456