IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.355/2010 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.. Vs. Jaspal Kaur & Ors. Date of order : 26.4.2010 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SAPRE Mr. Mukul Singhvi, for the appellant. Mr. Hemant Dutt, Caveator, for the respondents. BY THE COURT:- This is a miscellaneous appeal filed by Insurance company (Insurer of offending vehicle) under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (For short called 'the Act') against an award dated 13.1.2010 passed by MACT, Hanumangarh in Claim Case No.33/2008. 2. By impugned order, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition of claimants filed under Section 166 of the Act and awarded a total sum of Rs.6,70,547/- to claimants for the death of one “Lakha Singh” who died in vehicular accident. The impugned award was passed jointly and severally against all the non applicants including the appellant as insurer of offending vehicle. 3. In this appeal filed by Insurer, the challenge is 1 essentially to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to claimants. According to appellant, it is on higher side and being excessive in nature, the same deserves to be reduced. 4. Admittedly, Insurer (appellant herein) did not seek permission before the Tribunal in claim case to contest the claim on all the grounds which are available to Insured as contemplated under Section 170 ibid. In view of this admitted position, the Insurer has no locus/right to challenge the quantum of compensation awarded to claimant by filing this appeal. In other words, in the absence of permission not being asked much less granted by the Tribunal under Section 170 ibid to Insurer (appellant), they have no right to file an appeal under Section 173 of the Act and question the quantum of compensation awarded by Tribunal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant however contended that appellant had applied before the Claims Tribunal by making an application under Section 170 of the Act seeking permission to contest the claim ibid but Claims Tribunal did not even allow the appellant to file such application. I do not agree to this submission. Firstly the original record of the claim case does not show that any such application was filed by the appellant or claim was not allowed to be filed. Secondly even order sheets of claim case does not make a mention of this fact. In the absence of these two factors, it is difficult to entertain this submission though sought to be proved by the appellant by filing an affidavit of lawyer in this appeal. As laid down by Supreme Court in A.R.Antule's case, the original record of the case and the order sheets recorded therein must be treated as conclusive one for determining the issues arising in the case. When the order sheet of the case are silent on this issue, then they must prevail as against a statement made on affidavit by a lawyer and that 2 too at a belated stage in appeal. 6. In view of foregoing decision, I am inclined to dismiss the appeal as not maintainable at the instance of Insurer of offending vehicle because it seeks to challenge the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and secondly in the absence of permission not being obtained from Tribunal by Insurer as provided by Section 170 ibid, they have no locus to challenge the quantum in appeal. Since the challenge in this appeal is not on any other ground which are available to Insurer under the Act and hence I need not consider any such grounds in this appeal. 7. In view of foregoing discussion, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed in limine. (A.M. SAPRE),J. /Sushil/ 3