Court No. 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL. (1) A.O. No. 197 of 2003. United India Insurance Company, Ltd., through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Tikonia, Nainital Road, Haldwani, District-Nainital …… Opp.party/Appellant. Versus 1. Manoj Kumar Mittal S/o Sri Gyan Prakash, R/o-C-9 Jal Nigam Colony, Seema Dwar, Dehradun, ……. Claimant/Respondent 2. Shriram S/o Sri Chhedha Lal R/o Badrish Madho, Badhohi, District-Hardoi, C/o Sri Subhash Juneja, Gurgaon, Near Bus Stand. 3. Subhash Juneja S/o Sri Santlal Juneja, M/s Juneja Tradrs, 48 Gopal Nagar, Gurgaon, Near Bus Stand. Or Gokul Get Reawri M/s Juneja Traders, 4. The oriental Insurance Company Through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Dehradun. …….. opp.party/Respondents. (2) A.O. No. 200 of 2003 United India Insurance Company Ltd. Though its Divisional Manager, Divisional Officer, Tikonia, Nainital Road, Haldwani, District-Nainital. …… Opp.party/Appellant. Versus 1.Muneer Ahmad S/o late Mohseen R/o-C-9Jal Nigam Colony, Seema Dwar, Dehradun, …… Claimant/Respondent 2. Shriram S/o Chhudha Lal R/o badrish Madho, Badhohi, District-Hardoi, C/o Sri Subhash Juneja, M/s Juneja Traders, 48 Gopal nagar, Gurgaon, Near Bus Stand. 3.Subhash Juneja S/o Sri Santlal Juneja, M/s Juneja Traders, 48 Gopal Nagar, Gurgaon, Near Bus Stands. Or Gokul Get Reawri M/s Juneja Traders, 4. The Oriental Insurance Company Through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Officer, Dehradun. …………. Opp.party/Respondents. ………. Sri Naresh pant, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri B.P. Nautiyal learned counsel for respondent-Manoj Kumar. Sri Manoj Tiwar, learned counsel for the respondent-Muner Ahmad Sri Ram Ji Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents 2 & 3, Sri D.S.Patni, learned counsel for the respondent No.4. ………… Date: 2rd September, 2004. Hon’ble P.C.Verma, J. Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. Both these appeals are being heard together and decided by one and common order as the facts and question involved are common and also the vehicle involved in the accident and the date of accident is same. 2. Both these appeals have been preferred by the United India Insurance Company Ltd. under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the common judgment and award dated 21.5.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Dehradun in Motor Accident Claim Case Nos. 7 of 2001 and 205 of 2000 respectively, by which the claim petitions filed by the claimants were allowed for compensation of Rs.3,71,000/- and Rs. 5,62,000/- respectively alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of each claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3- Brief facts giving rise to these appeals are that on 25.9.2000 at about 10.00 a.m. the claimants in both the cases were going through Scooter No. UP-07J-3413. When they reached near District Jail at Hardwar Road, vehicle Tata Sumo No. HR 36A-8190 which was being driven rashly and negligently by Opp.party No.2 came at its wrong side nad hit the scooter due to which the scoorists- claimants fell down on the road. They sustained grievous injuries due to said accident. Due to their injuries they were taken to different Hospitals for better treatment. At the time of accident claimant Munner Ahmad was 50 years old and was posted as Head Clerk in Jal Nigam. He was getting monthly salary of Rs. 9000/-. The claimant Manoj Kumar was aged 46 years old and was posted as Draughtsman in Jal Nigham. He was drawing a monthly. Salary of Rs. 9735/- at the time of accident. They filed their separate claim petition before the Tribunal o n account of their disablement in the said accident. 4- The opposite parties contested the claim petitions before the Tribunal by filing their separate written statements. The Opp.party No.1 United India Insurance Company did not deny the insurance of vehicle Tata Sumo No. HR 36A-8190. Rests of the allegations have been denied by it. Opp.party No.2-driver of the vehicle Tata Sumo alleged that the accident occurred due to own negligence of the scooterists. The Opp.party No.3 admitted the ownership of the vehicle Tata Sumo and stated that the said vehicle was insu4red with United India Insurance Company at the relevant time. The Opp.party No.4-Oriental Insurance Company denied all the allegations of the claim petition and stated that the driver of the scooter was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident, hence they are not liable to pay any compensation. The Tribunal, on the pleadings of the parties framed the necessary issues and on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties, allowed the claim petitions accordingly against the Opp.party No.1-United India Insurance Company. Felling aggrieved, the United India Insurance Company has come up in appeals in each case. 5- The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted before us that the appellant has a right to contest the case on merit under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act and, therefore, argued that the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidence on record in each case to determine the quantum of compensation. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that applications under Sec. 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act were moved before the Tribunal for permission but the learned counsel could not indicate that the permission was granted or not to contest the cases on all the grounds. In these cases, the owner of the offending vehicle has contested the cases before the Tribunal. There is no finding that there has been collusion between the owner of the offending vehicle and the injured-claimants. Therefore, the appellant-Insurance Company cannot be allowed to challenge the quantum of compensation by filing these appeals. The appeal can be field by the Insurance Company on limited grounds under the provisions of the Act. We are fortified in our view by the Apex Court’s judgment in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Chandigarh Vs. Nicolletta Rohtagi and others, reported in (2002) 7, Supreme Court Cases, page 456. In the case, it has been observed by the Apex Court that, “even if no appeal is preferred under Section 173 of 1988 Act by an insured against the award of a Tribunal, it is not permissible for an insurer to file an appeal questioning the quantum of compensation as well as findings as regard negligence or contributory negligence of the offending vehicle.” Thus in view of the above law laid down by the Apex Court, none of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is tenable and has to be ignored outright. 5- In view of the aforesaid discussion, these appeals have no merit and are hereby dismissed. The impugned judgment and award is upheld. No order as to costs. Amount, if deposited in the appeals, shall be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. (B.S. Verma, J.) (P.C.Verma,J.) 02.09.2004 P.Singh