s-Ay BEFQRE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. N0. GPr< OF 2004. APPELLANT NOrf-APPLICANT N0. 3 RESPONDENTS :r United India Insurance Co. Ltd., M.G. Road, P.B. No. 104, Vijay Nagram Jiv, Through United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Korba, T.P. Nagar, Korba (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS :^1. Samarm Bai, wife of Sadhram, aged 45 years, Ts'. Jaipal Siagh, son of Sadhram, aged 19 years, 3^ Sukh Singh, son of Sadhram, All respondent no. 1 to 3 resident of Limdih, Police Station Kartala, Dista'ict Korba (Chhatdsgarh), CLAIMANT 4.y Superintendent, Leprosy Mission Hospital, Chhellum, Vijay Nagram, Andhia Pradesh 5. Stipen Parihar ( Padiyar has been wrongly written as Parihar) , son of Harishchandra Prihar, resident of Vidyut Mandal Colony, Super E-484, Korba, Tahsil and District Korba (CUhattisgarh) NON-APPLICANTS N0.1 AND 2. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988 ~^' .(Claim in appeal valued at Rs. 4,63,600/- only) ^. Being aggrieved with the award dated 26.6.2004, passed in Claim Contd.,2.. XI-HC-22 3^r^rar?Tq', 9^w\s, f^rray W^i ^wh .h^.A-.^o..i '^5'1-LOO 1 KIIPITsnilch ••••••••••••••••••• •••g^-'2og sn^T^ ^iTOan^r sb*< tlRd •w^TCTmwgf^r ^rafepf^Twi?ffffte^t tRtRK ^srf^q'sn^r )IVIS!ON BENCH: ion'ble Shri A.K. Patnaik, CJ Hon'ble Shri L.C. Bhadoo. J. EO.'Q3/2Q05: - M!SC. APPEAL N0.975 OF 2l004: - Heard Mr. H.B. Agrawal, S^. Adv., with M'ss Shipra Biswas |!earned counse! forthe appellant. This is an appea! filed by Unfted India Insuranc®Co. Ltd. under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicies pict, 1988 against the asrard dated 26/06/2004, passed by the Additior|al Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba, district Korba sn Claim Case|No.127 of 2002 awarding a sum of Rs.4,63,600/- in favour of responderlts/claimants. The ground taken in the compensation avrarded is excessfve evidence on record. appeal memorandum is that the and is not born out by ths The appea! is not maintein^ble as the appeal by the insurer against the award onthe ground (hat the compensafon amountwas liabte to be reduced on account of|corrtributory negligence on the part of the deceased, was not maintai!(able as the conditions speciflsd in Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles ^ct, 1988 were not satisfied and as a matter of fact no pernlission wa|s granted by the Tribunal to Uie insurance Company to contestthe|proceedings befbrethe Tribuna! on thegrounds otherthan the greund^ mentioned in SecUon 149(2) Qfthe ('ft^y^) ) c XI-HC-22 311^51 ^iT R-fi+sn^r sti*(i«t>yl6(i ^ s^'^ipn^pr, aTfltf'Ko, Ricfiy^< 3)l^l<4^ch i IIICTI Sti*lith ••••••l'";-"""-;-'g^ ) 2CO f^s 311^1 e'wiw^ifer -z said Act. The Supreme Court Ltd, Chandigarh Vs. Nifcolletta SAR (Civil) 860 has dec'ided paragraphs i.e. 31 & 32 ofthe aft^ We have precedent specffled do^s "31. conditions is satisfied, an Insurance to challenge the award on| where Uiere is a eollusi<tn insi^d or the insured d^ further, the Tribunal Company to contest the c| an insurer to seek permis the claim on the ground person against whom permission is granted contest the claim on insurerto file an appeal aggrieved. tn any permission is erroneou^l challenge only that grounds specified in sub|- 1988Act. Butsuch bona fide and filed at required to tead his compensaBon by ftaud byl sAid merits cafce <»ii<<fCT41-iiii4iaTffteA<[Sit<ii ^sif^irsn^r i)i the case of National Insurance Co. IRohtagi and others, reported in 2002 |the aforesaid issue and the relevant afo|'esaid judgment are qu^ed hereunder: lalready held that unless the inSection 170 of 1988Act Sompany has no right of appeal Imerits. However, in a situation between ttie daimants and 4>es nol contest the claim and, not implead the Insurance ;|aim in such cases it isopen to ^sion of the Tribunat to contest tivailabte to the insured or to a claim has been made. If the insurer is alkwed to in that case it is open to the lagainst an award on nierte, if where an appticsrtton for .ly rejected the insurer can part al|the orderwhitefiling appeal on hsection (2) of SecUon 149 of appli|caUon for permission has to be stage when the insured is So far as oMaining Ithe claimant is concemed. tt is the evldence. (41&sRa<<) XI-HC-22 3^'^IFIRW, ©Tflu'IS,fSldiy^'l, Sii^i ^iach Hllrtl shW<h •••r•••••••••••••••••• y^ 200 sn^r^ir f?IR;3II^T sniiqiHl^a' sn^TSRn'wtristf =t)MFft<(l'f*fiiciT^feI^<RiHi< ^sri^iTsn^T no longer res integia proceeding and in such ca| apply to the Tribunal for 32. For the the questton is that even if| Section 173 of 1988 Act teyj ofaTribunal,itisnot appeal questioning the qua) as findings as regards negligence of the ofFending tilat (iraud vitiates the entire ^es tt is open to an insurer to ofaward. cafees rectificaUon afb|%sald reasons, our answer to 1 no appeal Is preferred under |an insured against theaward penn|ssible for an insurer to fite an jajntum of compensation as welt negligence or contributory h/ehicle." It will be clear from the aforesatel unless the conditions precedent are saUsfied, thelnsurance Comp^r the award on meritsand in a situation the claimants and the insured or it is open to the insurer to seek claim on ttie ground avaiiable to t^e a claim has been made and ifsuc) is allowed to contest the claim oi|i insurer to file an appeal againi Otherwlse, the quantum of comp^nsation insurer in an appeal under Sectic|n clear from the aforesaid judgmen^ ttiat SecGon 170 of the Act 1988are| insurer to quesHon the quantum judgment of the Supreme Court that st)eclfled in SecUon 170 (rfthe Act1988 i^ny has no right of appeal to challenge wherethere is a collusion between |he insured does not contest the claim, p4rmission ofthe Tribunal ID contest the Ule insured ortoa person againstwhom permissionis granted and the insurer merits, in that case it is open to the the award on merits, if aggrieved. cannot be chaltenged by the 173 of the Act 1988. tt will atso be untess the condiUons specffled in satisfied, it is not permlssible for an compensation aswellas the findlngs (•fli^fe^) XI.HC-22 T^ •<ii<<ic»<i;®Tflu'is,Rirtltiy Hr*<ctTa»*ii«h 3ii^i ^aeh .h-.-.^'06'.^^ I't-to1^ •^' an^TW fewsn^r aiK <if?a ^ as regards negligence or vehicle. con<rit%itory negligence of the offending In view of the aforesaid •Vl<lt<1<ft-! WRff ^' fec& <RR3K ^iarl^Hsn^r On perusal of the rwoijds of the Tribunal, we find that no permission was apptied for und^r Secfion 170 of the Act 1K>8 by ttie appellant to contest the claim <}f the respondents/claimante on merits and no permission has been grai|ited by the Tribunal tothe appettents in that regard. dwision (rf the Supreme Court, this appeal is not maintainable and th^^mg^s accoKlingly dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- ChiefJustice L.C.BHADOO Judge (^^f^) - :- n~