IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH M.A.C.M.A.No.523 of 2009 Between: United India Insurance Company Limited .... PETITIONER AND Garikumukkula Solomon Raju and another ....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner : Counsel for the Respondents : The Court delivered the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH M.A.C.M.A. No.523 of 2009 JUDGMENT: This appeal has been preferred by the United India Insurance Company Limited aggrieved by order dated 09.01.2002 passed in O.P. No.231 of 2000 by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Karimnagar. The O.P. No.231 of 2000 was filed by the claimant under Section 166(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) claiming compensation of Rs.2,29,060/- for the injuries sustained by him in an accident that was occurred on 17.08.1999. As against the said claim, the learned Tribunal, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, partly allowed the said O.P. and awarded compensation of Rs.1,33,500/- with proportionate costs and subsequent interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. Assailing the same, the appellant, Insurance Company, preferred the present appeal on the ground, inter alia, that the learned Tribunal committed an error in holding that the accident was caused because of rash and negligent driving of the Jeep. On behalf of the claimant, MACMA MP. No.4564 of 2009 is filed seeking to expedite the hearing of the appeal wherein it is submitted by him that he is an old person suffering with injuries occurred in the said accident. It is also categorically submitted that the appellant, Insurance Company, has not taken any permission as required under Section 170 of the Act. Hence, the appeal preferred by the appellant is not maintainable. From a perusal of the proceedings, it is obvious that on 07.09.2009 when the matter has been taken up for hearing, there was no representation for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the claimant submitted that the appellant had not taken any permission as required under Section 170 of the Act, therefore, the matter was directed to be listed on 08.09.2009 under the caption for orders. On 08.09.2009, the learned counsel for the respondent took time to obtain instructions on the aspect as to whether the appellant had obtained permission under Section 170 of the Act. Even today also, when the matter has been taken up for hearing, there is no representation for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the claimant submitted that he was informed by the learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant that on verification he noticed that no permission was obtained under Section 170 of the Act. Therefore, the learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the appeal is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed, without going into the merits of the case for which, he placed reliance in the case of ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. YARAVA LAKSHMI DEVI AND OTHERS[1]. At this juncture, it is necessary to look into the citation relied by the learned counsel, which reads the relevant para 11 of the said citation as under: “11. In view of the above conclusion, these two appeals are not maintainable because appellant insurer did not obtain permission under Section 17(b) (sic.170 (b)) of 1988 Act. It was so held in National Insurance Company Limited v. Nicolletta Rohtagi, wherein the following observations were made. “We have already held that unless the conditions precedent specified in Section 170 of the 1988 Act are satisfied, an insurance company has no right of appeal to challenge the award on merits. However, in a situation where there is a collusion between the claimants and the insured or the insured does not contest the claim and, further, the Tribunal does not implead the Insurance Company to contest the claim in such cases it is open to an insurer to seek permission of the Tribunal to contest the claim on the ground available to the insured or to a person against whom a claim has been made. If permission is granted and the insurer is allowed to contest the claim on merits, in that case it is open to the insurer to file an appeal against an award onmerits, if aggrieved. In any case where an appelication for permission is erroneously rejected the insurer can challenge only that part of the order while filing appeal on grounds specified in sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the 1988 Act. But such application for permission has to be bona fide and filed at the stage when the insured is required to lead his evidence. So far as obtaining compensation by fraud by the claimant is concerned, it is no longer res integra that fraud vitiates the entire proceeding and in such cases it is open to an insurer to apply to the Tribunal for rectification of award. ….. For the aforesaid reasons, our answer to the question is that even if no appeal is preferred under Section 173 of the 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 regards negligence or contributory negligence of the offending vehicle.” From the above, it is obvious that before filing any appeal by the Insurance Company aggrieved by any order passed by the learned Tribunal, it is statutory obligation on the part of the Insurance Company to obtain permission as required under Section 170 of the Act that was not obtained by the appellant, Insurance Company, in the instant case. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel, taking into consideration the citation referred to above and without going into the merits of the case, I am of the view that the appeal is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable since the appellant had not obtained any permission as required under Section 170 of the Act. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH Date: 15-09-2009 MD/LSK [1] 2009(4) ALT 151