k APPLLANT N0N‘APPLICANT 3 ‘ i r i { RESPbNDENTs The New India Assurance Co.Ltd., Bargarh National High Way 7 Near Gurudwara C/oVZonal Officer Co.Ltd. Raipur (C.G.) The New lndia Assurance l.g/Ratwik Kumar Gupta /{' Aged 19 years w S/o Late Govind Prasad / Gupta Smt.Ramkunwar Bai Gupta W/o Jawahar Prasad Gupta Aged 65 years Both resident of Gupta Para Arang, Tahsil and District Raipur (Chhattisgarh). -— 6 3. Mariyans Kullu f s/o Polis Kullu [ Wargarh Resident Orissa of Dem Colony I At present Jain Transport d Raipur District Shailendra Prasad Gupta S/o Laxminarayan Gupta Resident of Suhela P.S.Suhela District Bargarh (Orissa) Atpresent Prakash Garage Station Road Raipur District (Vehicle Owner Raipur (C.G.) ' Station Roa Tahsil and Raipur (C.G No. MP-23-740l Truck). Appeal valued at Rs. 3,67,000- / " ' HIGH COURT OF CHHAT’I‘ISGARH : BILASPUR M. A. No. 659 of 2002 Appellant The New India Assumes Co. Ltd. Versus Respondents Ratwik Kumar Gupta & others APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988 DB: Hon’ble Shn' I. M. Quddusi 65 Hon’ble ShriN K Agalwal JJ Shn Sn Kumar Agarwal Semor Advocate Wlth Shn Anand Kumar Gup£a Advocate for the appellant Shn Santosh Yadu Advocate for the respondents No 1 V >>~. ORDER (Oral) ( Passed on thls 14th day of September, 20 10) Per I. M. Quddusi J 1 Heard. 1. The instant appeal an‘ses hum the awanl dated 6th May, 2002, passed by the 5th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, in Claim Case No. 13/ 1999. 2. The facts in brief are that the claimants/respondents No. 1 and 2, being legal heirs of the deceased Tushar Kuniar Gupta med a claim case for award of compensation of Rs. 10,60,000/- before the Tribunal. The case of the claimants was that on 30.6.1999 at about 8 30 m the evemng the vehicle, havmg reg1stratlon No M P 23 - ‘ 7401 owned by the respondent No 4 and insured by the appellant was be1ng driven by the respondent No 3 in a rash and negligent manner thus h1t the deceased near Arang Talkies 3. Learned Tribunal havmg con31dered the facts and ev1dence on record granted the award of Rs. 3,67,000/ With 9% interest p.a. from the date of the application i.e. 13.8. 1999, With cost. Being aggrieved, the appellant insurance company has hled the instant appeal. 4. Indisputably, the appellant - Insurance Company has not obtained. g the permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which reads as under : I ‘“ xvr I 170. Impleading insurer in certain cases.—Whem in the course of any inquiry, the Claims Tribunal is satisfied that — r i (a) there is collusion betweeu' the person making the claim ‘ and the person against whom the claim is made, or (b) the person against whom the claim is made has failed to contest the claim, it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, irect that the , insurer who may be liable in respect of such claim, shall be impleaded as a party to the proceeding and the insurer so g l i impleaded shall thereupon have, without prejudice to the l i made.” Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nicolletta Rohtag and others 2003 (3) TAC 293 (SC) has held that unless the condmons precedent specnied in Section 170 of 1988 Act. 1s satisfied Insurance Company has no right of appeal to challenge In View of the above settled position of law, the instant appeal on behalf of the appellant Insurance Company, in absence of permission fimder Section 170 of the Act 1988 is not maintainable and the same rs drsnnssed No order as to costs. \ w SdL I N K AganNaL 7" Judge provisions contained in sub-section (2) of section 149, the right to contest the claim on all or any of the grounds that are available ‘to the person against whom the claim has been the award on merits. Sd/- I.M. Quddusi Judge Thakur “ ~ “ “ d