t PQJLANT M.A.No: O /2003 Kg §efendant No.3 kESpoNDENT ant No 1 ‘ RES/PONDENT maimant No.2 EjsmNDENT Cléimant No.3 RESPONDEN Claimant No.4' RBS’IDONDENT wélaimant No.5 fTiFEE l\lBHl\ IfNah‘onal Insulancc Company Ltd. y Thmugh Branch Manager, Nau‘onal Insurance Company, Bilaspur. ,{' i ‘ RESPONDENT § ‘ claimant No.6 w ESPONDENT \ Defendant No 1 3r l /7 ,Govind Ram Dewangén, S/o Ramji Lal Dewangan, Aged about 42 years. Smt. Krishna Bai Dewangan, W/o Govindram Dewangan, Aged about 37 years. K11. Mamta Dewangah, D/o Govind Ram Dewangan, Aged. about 15 years. Ku. Poopam Dewangan, D/o Govind Ram Dewangan, Aged about 13 years. Namndra Prasad Dewangan, S/o Govind Ram Dewangan, Aged about 1 1 years. Vani Kumari Dewangan, D/o Govind Ram Dewangan, Aged about 9 years. A11 resident of village- Kl‘lamiha, P.S. Baradwar, Distt, Janjgir, Present R/ o Shivnagar, Rumgam, P.S. Balco, Distt. Korba (CVGJ Ramlal Sarthi, Slo Bhagat Ram Sarthi, Aged about 54 years, R/o Sector-5, Qr.No. 207, Balco Nagar, P.S. Balco, x District— Korba (C.G.) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHA’ITISGARH A’I‘ BILASPUR - Versus - j ‘ T é. . / / ’ {EN f THE HIGH COURT OF CHHA’ITISGARH A’I‘ BILASPUR ‘ }M.A.No./ $0 /2003 /’ b$¢ a£ 91‘3” watttawdeaigungwwawawta 3- ~ 1T3WQ9? rampant. ma . . . w n... m 5: Egamum gwam aw:_.qmaw sh kaji £31 aways» mm MM ' ~a. ‘41»2993 .. ' ‘ i . «v * ¢mmga mwvw. > ’§;:§:‘wn ‘ 4r I ) 1 i . ; , : Q\ Bharat AluminumCompany Ltd. Korba, RS. Byaléo Nagar, i RESPONDENT J/é. General Manager, E, Defendant No.2 District— §e¥ba w APPEAL UND 1988. ER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT ,// V i APPM EAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR WHICLES m Hon'bl Sh "I.M. uddusi& Hon’bleShri N5. Aggmal, J4. --. -3..--_..__ Present Shn B N Nande counsel forthe appellant None for the respondents ‘ ORAL 9RDER (Passed on 1 5‘“ day of September 201o) Per lM Quddusl. . Heard. _D_ivi ion Benc : _.-L--.... cla‘mants. 3.} 2. rThe appellant‘lnsurance Company has fled thrs appeal under Sefhon 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 against the Impugned rd dated 1309-2002 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Cl Ims Tnbunai Korba (for short ‘the Tribunal) m Ctalm Case No A 10 001 awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,51,6OOI- to the Brief facts of the case are that on 17-1 2-2000 the deceased Lalrt Dewangan while travehng along wrth other passengers from Korba to ' Darn by Vrkram Auto bearing registration No MP 57 K/0036 near Kohadra Bridge was dashed by the Jeep bearmg registratlon No M P 57 DIOO7O as a result of whrch the deceased Lallt Dewangan fallen down from auto He was taken to the N TPC Hosprtal Korba for treatment where he died Report of the incident was lodged In the o of Ra tl-le put IPC Polrce Chowkr agarnshnon—applrcant No 1 under Sechon 304m) 4. The claimants unfortunate parents minor srsters and mrnorr brothers have tited a claim petrtlon before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) claiming l i l l *4 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR , MA. No. 80 of 2003 APPELLANT Defehdant No.3 National Insurance Company Ltd. i Versus RESPONDENTS ¥ cgWANTS. Govind Ram Dewangan and others. cémpensation of Rs.19,38.000i- for the death of the #eceased in the acicident. 5. The learned Tribunal on closed serutiny of evidence led, material placed and the submissions made, awarded an amount of R:.4,51,600/- in favour of the claimants and against the re pondents for its paymentjointly and severally. 6. Before entering into the merits of the case, it appears that the ap‘pellant/ Insurance Company has fled the instant appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned b‘unal However, permission under Section 170 of the Act to col test the claim on all available defences was not granted to the appellanHnsurance Company and this fact has not been disputed by the learned ‘counsel appearing for the appellant/insurance Company. 7. Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Nicolletta Rohtagi and others. reported In 2003 (3) TAC 293 (SC), has held m para 31 of the iudgment which i reproduced as under 3"31. We have already held that unless thee conditions precedent specifed in Section 170 of 1988 Act Is satisfed insurance Company has no right of appeal to challenge the award on l merits ” ‘ 8. ln View of the above settled poetlon the instant appeal fled ‘on behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company in absence of the permission under Section 170 of the Act 1988 Is not maintainable and the same is dismissed as such. Sd/- W l Judge 1M QUDDUSI \ a s