SiRll.BBncli IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR APPELLANT /NONAPPLICANT N0.1 M.A.C.rzl\lV2011 ^HE NEW INDIAASSURANCE CO. LTD BRANCH OFFICE BENAJHABAR ROAD, KANPUR (U.P.) THROUGH: DIVISIONAL MANAGER BILASPUR VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1.) MINIAKSHI SINGH AGE 17 YRS / APPLICANTS S/0 LATE MANOJ KUMAR SINGH 2) S?IR-ffe.. lpi£i*s-!?eaeyS>w. DK^.—...... ? Z^(f MAYANK PRATAP AGE 12 YRS S/0 LATE MANOJ KUMAR SINGH RESPONDENT N0. 2 & 3 ARE MINOR THROUGH GUARDIAN GRAND FATHER SHRI RAJNARAYAN SINGH ALL R/0 2-A/92 OFFICER COLONY S.E.C.L.BISHRAMPUR ,DISTRICT SURGUJA (C.G.) 3.) SMT. SUDARSHAN BHATIYA AGE 55 . W/0 JEET KUMAR BHATIYA R/0 109/367 R.K.NAGAR, G.T.NAGAR KANPUR (U.P.) TRUCK OWNER ^ RAMASHRAYA YADAV AGE 50 YRS S/0 SUKHLAL YADAV THROUGH : SMT. SUDARSHAN BHATIYA R/0 109/367 R.K. NAGAR; G.T.NAGAR KANPUR (U.P.) TRUCK DRIVER IFCO TOKIYO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED. 4TH, & 5 th, FLOOR, IFCO TOWER PLOTNO. 3, SECTOR-29, GUDGAON HARIYANA ^ ..2.. -^r^ 5) ..2.. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 MOTOR VEHICLE ACT AGAINST AWARD DATED 8.3.2011 PASSED BY 2 ND ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T.C. (F.T.C.l SOORAJPUR DISTT. SARGUJA^C.G. IN CLAIM CASE N6^0/2009 APPEAL VALUED AT RS. 3^900/- (70% OF TOTAL AWARD OF RS. 57,100/- COURT FEE PAID RS. 15/- FACTS OF THE CASE (1) This appeal is .against award dt.8_.3J-l—nacc^Au— t<a.'' '•a i,. ^y] •tj... '^y'y ^> "^^^ l^ i^^S^ aas* HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BII-ASPUR tA'£\ <~ \?^:\U\ MA(Q PR No.<3813 of 2011' APPELLANT RESPONDENTS The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. VERSUS Miniakshi & others (APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.) Present : Shri Srikumar Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Shri Anand Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 16.11.2011) 1. The appellant-lnsurance Company has filed this appeai under Section 173 of the Motor Vehictes Act, 1988 (for short 'MV Act'), against the award dated 08.03.2011, passed by the llnd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Surajpur, Distt. Surguja (for short 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 50/09. 2. Shri Srikumar Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurance company submits that this appeal has been filed by the insurance company challenging the quantum of compensation on the ground that both the vehicles involved in the accident have equaily contributed to the cause of accident, whereas, the Tribuna! has wrongly held : offending vehicle, insured by the present appellant/The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. has contributed to the cause of accident to the extent of 70 percent. Sahu 3. Before entering into the merits of the case, it appears that the appellant/ Insurance Company has filed the instant appeal in respect of the quantum and negligence. However, permission under Section 170 of MV Act to contest the ctaim on all available defences was not granted to the appellant/lnsurance Company and this fact has been fairly admitted by the learned counsel appearing forthe appellant/lnsurance Company. 4. The Supreme Court in case of HaGonal Inswance Company Ltd. vs. Nlcolletta Rohtag! and athers; 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 unless the conditions precedent speeified in Section 170 of 1988 Act is satisfied, tnsurance Company has no right of appeal to challenge the award on merits.........." 5. In view of the above settled pc«ition,the instant appeal filed on behalf of the appellarrt/lnsurance Company in absence of the permission under Section 170 of MV Act, B not maintainable and the same is dismissed as such. ——_ Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge 1