HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No. 3853 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company against the award made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum II Additional District Judge, Cuddapah in O.P.No. 141 of 2000 dated 28.1.2003, filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- as against which, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 1,95,000 /- with interest at 9% per annum. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and perused the entire material made available on record. Since the permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act has not been obtained by the appellant- The United Insurance Company Limited to file the present appeal, following the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPNAY LIMITED, CHANDIGARH VS. NICOLLETTA ROHTAGI AND OTEHRS[1], this appeal is liable to be dismissed. The relevant portion of the above judgment at paragraphs 10,12,29 and 31 reads as under: 10. Chapter VIII of 1939 Act and Chapter XI of 1988 Act has been enacted on pattern of several English statutes which is evident from the report 'Motor Vehicles Insurance Committee 1936-37'. In order to find out the real intention for enacting Section 96 of 1939 Act, which corresponds to Section 149 of 1988 Act, it is relevant to trace the historical development of the law for compulsory third party insurance in England. Prior to 1930, there was no law of compulsory insurance in respect of third party rights in England. As and when an accident took place the injured (claimant) used to bring action against the motorist for recovery of damages. But in many cases it was found the owner of the offending vehicle had no means to pay to the injured or dependent of the deceased and in such a situation the claimants were unable to recover damages. It is under such circumstances various legislations were enacted. To meet the situation, it is for the first time 'The Third Parties' Rights Against Insurance Act 1930' was enacted in England. The provision of the said Act finds place in Section 97 of 1939 Act, which gave to third party a rights to sue directly against the insurer. Subsequently, 'The Road Traffic Act, 1930' was enacted which provided for the compulsory insurance of motor vehicles. The provision of the said Act is engrafted in Section 95 of 1939 Act and Section 146 of 1988 Act. It is relevant to notice that under Section 38 of the English Act of 1930, certain conditions of insurance policy were made ineffective so far as third parties were concerned. The object behind the said provision was that third party should not suffer on account of failure of the insured to comply with those terms of the insurance policy. 12. We have traced the legislative history of English law as regards liability of an insurer in the event of a motor accident in respect of third party right was not for interpreting Sections 149, 170 and 173 of 1988 Act, but only for showing that while enacting Chapter VIII of 1939 Act or Chapter XI of 1988 Act, the intention of legislature was to protect third party rights and not the insurer. 29.For the aforesaid reasons, as well as that the learned Judges in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) have failed to notice the limited grounds available to an insurer under Section 149(2) of the Act, we are of the view that the decision in United India Insurance (supra) does not lay down the correct view of law. AIR 2002 SC 662 : (2002 AIR SCW 273) 31. We have already held that unless the conditions precedent specified in Section 170 of 1988 Act is satisfied, an insurance company has no right of appeal to challenge the award on merits. However, in a situation where there is a collusion between the claimants and the insured or the insured does not contest the claim and, further, the tribunal does not implead the insurance company to contest the claim in such cases it is open to an insurer to seek permission of the tribunal to contest the claim on the ground available to the insured or to a person against whom a claim has been made. If permission is granted and the insurer is allowed to contest the claim on merits 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 can challenge only that part of the order while filing appeal on grounds specified in sub-section (2) of Section 149 of 1988 Act. But such application for permission has to be bona fide and filed at the stage when the insured is required to lead his evidence. So far as obtaining compensation by fraud by the claimant 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 the Tribunal for rectification of award.” Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 22.07.2010 KA [1] (2002) 7 SCC 456