HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A. No.1358 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order and decree in O.P. No.308 of 1997 on the file of the District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, dated 15.11.2002, whereby and whereunder an amount of Rs.50,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal as compensation. Being aggrieved by the same, the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company filed the present appeal challenging the quantum of compensation. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Though the Insurance Company raised several grounds questioning the quantum of compensation, the fact remains that it had not obtained permission of the Tribunal as required under Section 170 of the Act to contest the matter on merits. The defences available to the Insurance Company are enumerated in Sub-Section (2) of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’). Except those defences, as provided therein, the Insurance Company cannot take the other defences like rash and negligent driving or quantum of compensation, unless it takes permission from the Tribunal to contest the matter on merits. In NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHANDIGARH v. NICOLLETTA ROHTAGI[1] while dealing with a similar case, the Apex Court held as under: “In Shankarayya v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. (1998) 3 SCC 140 it was held that an insurance company when impleaded as a party by the Court can be permitted to contest the proceedings on merits only if the conditions precedent mentioned in Section 170 are found to be satisfied and for that purpose the insurance company has to obtain an order in writing from the Tribunal and which should be a reasoned order by the Tribunal. Unless this procedure is followed, the insurance company cannot have a wider defence on merits than what is available to it by way of statutory defences. In absence of the existence of the conditions precedent mentioned in Section 170, the insurance company was not entitled to file an appeal on merits questioning the quantum of compensation”. In view of the aforementioned decision of the Apex Court and in view of the fact that the appellant-Insurance Company failed to obtain necessary permission from the Tribunal as contemplated under Section 170 of the Act to contest the matter on merits, it is not entitled to prefer an appeal questioning the quantum of compensation. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. Accordingly, the C.M.A. is dismissed as not maintainable. No costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J DATE: 22nd July, 2010 pnb [1] (2002) 7 SCC 456