^ HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR (DMSION BENCHt Coram : Hon'bte Shri S.R. Nayak, CJ & Hon'ble Shri D.R. Deshmukh, J. APPELLANT (Non-appl. No. 2) Respondents (Appl. No. 1) (Appl. No. 2) (Non-appt. No.1) (Non-appl. No.3) Misc. Appeal No. 747 of 2005 United India Insurance Company Limited, Through Its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office Main Road Korba, Tahsil and District Korba (C.G.) Vs. 1. Smt. Parwati Jamnik W/o Late L.A. Jamnik, aged about 65 years. 2. Ku. Sonal Jamnik D/o Late L.A. Jamnik, aged about 30 years, Occupation Advocacy, Both are R/o D.C. Road Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) 3. Neeraj Patel S/o Balaram Patel aged about 30 years, R/o Kharsiya, Distt. surguja __[C.G.) 4 Vijay Jamnik S/o Late L.A. Jamnik, aged about 36 years, Occupation Service, R/o D.C. Road, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) Present: Shri Dashrath Gupta, leamed counsel for the appellant. ,L ORDER (Passed on 02m January, 2008) The fotlowing order of the Court was passed by k,CJ. In this appeal preferred by the 'nsurance Company, it is contended that'the driver of the other vehicle involved in the accident i.e. truck, had contributed negligence in causing accident and therefore, entire liability to pay compensation could not have been fastened on the appeilant - insurance company. This contention requires to be noticed is onty to be rejected. In the first instance, such a piea is not taken in the written statement/ statement of :z. objsctions fiied by the insurance company before the MACT. Further, the insurance company - appeilant has not adduced any evidence to prove that fact. It is needless to state that the question whether the drlver of the truck contributed negligence in causing accident is hundred pereent a questjon of fact. Admittedly, the appeliant - insurance company did not seek permission of the MACT under Section 170(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to contest the claim of the claimants on merit. Looking from that angle atso, the contention now urged by the appellant - insurance company touching merits of the matter could not be countenanced. The appeai is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. There shal! be no order as to costs. Sd/- Ouef Justice Di"PRaos^Des^^