IN THE HIS; ' COURT {3F CHHATI’ISGARH AT BILASPUR Misc. Ncf/(E’g ,rzooiff; Aypeal .F%PPELLANT : /"‘On'ental Insurange Cmpany Ltd., z Defendant Nc»3 Divisicmal Office, fhrough ifs Hvisional Manager, High Com't Road, Bilaspur (CG). 3 -Versus — RESPONDENT Qy” Smt. Ahilya Bai , 30 yam, \r {y‘ Claimant Neul I “Mira Ranmym‘ldas Vaisl‘mav. “9%gg}; RESPONDENT : &/.///Ku. Dhant Kumari, 10 years, flig/w} xi D/o. Ramayandas Vaishnav. 9-; ‘¢A 7" Claimant No.2 e F RESPONDENT : )X’ Ku. Iuhi, 8 years, Q Gaimmtt N03 D/c‘ Fmwayamias Vaieiumvg' a" $3» RESPONDENT y; Rahul, 6 years, Claimant No.4 Sfo Ramayandas Vaishnav. Respondents No. 2 t0 4 are minor, . Through their natural guardian £1 Motha‘ Smt. Ahilya Bai, Wd/o Ramayandas Vaishnav. REPONDENT : ¥ ,5’” Shli Mathuradas, 65 yams, Qaimant No.5 S/o Kharkhasdas Vaishnav. ye, RESONDENT : \96» Srmt. Jhul Bai; 60 yeals, (‘1aimani No‘6 W']o Matlmmdas Vaishmv. A11 R/o Vi]lage—_ Chandia Bhata, Tahsil —~ Lonni, Distt. Bilaspur (CG) RESPONDENT 9V Aswan: Kmmr, 25 Kw” yam, Defendant N01 Sim Gah'ram (30ml R/‘o Village— Kutela T016, Post—‘ Chilphi, TahsiL Lormi, Dist—t. Bilaspur (CG) —Driver— (~»/’ V w vOWIxer — , / APPEAL UNDER SECTION 11’, OFTHE MOTORVEHICLES AC1”: 1988 4/ RESPQNDENT :, \f s Gali Ram, 55 yam; Defemlant Ned Sfcr Dam‘3mgh Gandr Rfo Village- Kutela Tola, Post— Chilphi, Tahsil— Lormi, District -Bilaspur (CG), HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. No. 655 of 2004 APPELLANT : Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Versus RESPONDENTS : Smt. Ahilya Bai and others Division Bench:Hon'ble Shri LM. Quddusi 8a Hon’ble Shri N.K. Agarwal, JJ. Present: Shri Aj ay Mishra, counsel for the appellant. Shri Vikas Pradhan, Adv. for the respondent No. '7 and 8. ORAL ORDER (28-9—2010) Per LM. Quddusi, J. Heard The appellant—Insurance Company has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the impugned award dated 24-2—2004, passed by the Hnd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Mungeli Distt. Bilaspur (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in Claim Case No. 24/2003 awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,83,000/— to the claimants. Brief facts of the case are that on 25-3‘2003, deceased Ramayan Das Vaishnav was going on a motorcycle bearing registration No. CG—lO—BA/0168 to Petrol Pump of Lormi and Heeralal Sahu was also with him as pillion rider. The tractor and trolley bearing registration No. MP 26-B/2050 and MP 26—B/2049 coming from opposite direction being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver/respondent No. 7 dashed the motorcycle near the house of Dr. Lal. Ramayan Das Vaishnav and i ' Heeralal both fell down“. Ramayan Das Vaishnav died . due to the injuries sustained in the accident. The claimants being legal heirs filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act claiming Rs. 31,25,000/- as compensation for the death of the deceased. 4. The learned Tribunal on closed scrutiny of evidence led, material placed and the submissions made, awarded an amount of Rs.5,83,000/- in favour of the claimants and against the appellant, respondents No. 7 and 8 and respondent No. 5 jointly and severally. 5. Before entering into the merits of the case, it appears that the appellant/ Insurance Company has filed the instant appeal in respect of the quantum and negligence. However, permission under Section 170 of the Act to contest the claim on all available defences was not granted to the appellant—Insurance COmpany and this fact has not been disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company. Hon’ble -ApeX Court in the matter of National Insurunce Company Ltd. vs. Nicolletta Rohtagi and others; reported in 2003 (3) TAC 293 (SC), has held in para 3 1 of the judgment which is reproduced as under: “31. We have already held that unless the conditions precedent'specified in Section 170 of 1988 Act is satisfied, Insurance Company has no right of appeal to challenge the award on merits ............. 5) 8. In View of the above settled position, the instant appeal filed 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. g e 3di- 1 " l.M.Quddusi l a Sd/- l, Judge ‘ N. K. Agarwal ‘ ‘ Judge f