IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2274 of 1998 (O&M) Date of decision:29.06.2010 The New India Assurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Smt. Parsani and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. L.M.Suri, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate, for the appellant. Ms. Dimpal Sanghwan, Advocate, for Mr. Arvind Singh, Advocate, for the respondents. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The appeal survives for consideration only on the issue of its maintainability, having regard to the fact that the award is challenged only with reference to its quantum. It is seen from the records that the Insurance Company had not taken permission of the Court to take up defences on all grounds including the quantum, under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The only permissible defences of the Insurance Company are delineated under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the question of quantum cannot be urged by the Insurance Company in appeal. Even a joint appeal by the Insurance Company along with the FAO No.2274 of 1998 (O&M) - 2 - owner was found to be not maintainable by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chinnama George and others Versus N.K.Raju and another-2000 (4) SCC 130. This judgment was subsequently affirmed in National Insurance Company Limited, Chandigarh Versus Nicolletta Rohtagi and others-2002 (7) SCC 456. The appeal on the question of quantum alone without a permission under Section 170 is not maintainable and the appeal is dismissed as such. There shall be however no directions as to costs. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 29.06.2010 sanjeev