...........^^ ^^-^:3^^'^\-^! .tftd''1*! "' IN THE HIGH COURZOF AT BILASPUR CHHATT!SGARH M.A.NO^ ^-^ / 2006 Sinafo Appellants Insurer Driver/Owner National Insurance Company Ltd., G.E.Road, Raipur-fC.G.) Ashok Kumar Sahu S/o ShriRam sahu, R/o Village Kodapar, Tahsil - Kurud, Dist: Dhamtari-(C.G.) Versus Respondent jglaimant ^Ganga Ram S/o Dheluram, Aged about 35 years, R/o Village Achhota, Tahsil & Dist : Dhamtari-(C.G.) ^" APPEAL U/S_173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT L^. Awarripri amoiint : Rs.50 /- BW c< •^^ i^ai ional Insurance Company Ltd. Ganaa Ram Raj Awasthi, counse! for the appeliants. Abhishek Saraf, counsei for the respondent. 17: &,~T •iflftn j?nw i v i^Cfg? This is insurer's a 08-2005 passed in Clair Accldent Ciaims Tribun 'reby and whereundi I, Dhamtari, an smoun led a.qainst the award dated 06- by Additional Motor short 'the Tribunal'), has been ni in ravour appellanfc'insurance of the claim; iny. by way of instant appeal, the Insurance las chailenged the amount of compensation awarded ieamed Tribunal. it is also not in dfspute that permlssion 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the has not been obtained bythe insurance Company. -S. It is frite Section 170 of the awsrd on Saw that vvithout obtaining permission under Act, the insurance Company can not assai! grounds which are available to a person aqsinst whom the claim has been made. iS-._ '. ;^^:K?~''E^ '^ 1 I i% —-~<^£ 4. The Supreme Court in case of HaSonal Insiirance Co. (2002) 7 SCC 458 has observed as under: e have already l«s conditions precedent specified in Section 170 of 1988 Act are satisfied, sn insurance company has no right of appeal to chaltengs the award on merits. Howsver, in a situation where there is a collusion between the claimants and the Insured or the insured does not contest the claim and, Turther, the Tribunal does not imptead the insurance company to contest the clalm, in such cases it is open to an insurer to seek permission of the tribunal to contest the claim on the ground availabie to the insured or fo a person against whom a ciaim has been made. !f permission is granted and the insurer is ailowed to contest the clasm on merifs, in that case it is open to the insurer to file an appeal against an award on merits, if aggrieved. in any case where an application for permission is erroneously rejected the insurer csn challenge only that part of the order while filing appeai on grounds specified in sub-section (2) of Section 149 of 1988 Act. But such appilcation for permission has to be bona fide and filed at the stage when the insured is required to lead his evidence. So far as obtainlng compensation by fraud by the ciaimant is concerned, it is no longer res integra that fraud vitiates the entire proceeding and in such cases it is open to an insurer to apply to for rectification of award." K'/r 5. in view of above, the appeai being not maintainable as the Insur; award to be and Company has no right of appeai to challenge the issaiirng the amount awarded as compensation, is iisble nd is hereby dismissed. Sd/- N.K. Agrawa! Judge