^e^ ^-i- ^^ n (JUUK s ll OCIkl! LiU.iV!. @^^!^:|L!AT^I ^.i-gA-^ir^i The Oriental Insurance .'i"t r^^i r^;^.^ Brancn Dharntan, Distt .'•J. :n ! t, v. 3—i.U. Dhsnitsr !il! 1) Dalim Panigrahi, s/o. Maniram aged about 32 years, R/o. Viliage Chamiya, P.S. - Bhanpuri, distt. sstar (C.G.5 Driver 2) Leeladhar Khatri, S/o Mohan Lc Khatri, r/o Kumhar Khan, Jagdaipur, distt. Bastari'C.G.) iei 3) Smt. Parikal @ PLarika Bai, W/o Kunwar Singh, aged about 47 years, Biran Suryavanshi, D/o Late var Singh, aged about 22 years, Respondent No. 3 & 4 are R/o Village Bagdai, Post - Dimora, P.S. & Tahsi! - Gurur, distt. Durg (C.G.) moi >nt: Shri H.P. Agrawal, learned Gounsel for the appel'ant. me.201! 'he foiiowing order of the Court v-.'as passed V ^^^^i.^, "^'=^ iy allov/ina !.A. No. with this application are taken on record. rts filed ai 2. Shri H.P. Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant is hesrd on admissron. 3. Thls 'is snsurer's appeal against t'ne impugned award dated 27.11.2009, passed by the. Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balod, District Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 88/2008. 4. As against the compensation of Rs.12,25,000/- ciaimed by respondents No.3 and 4 Smt. Parikai @ Parika Bai and Ku. Biran Suryavanshi by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the death of deceased • Lskhram in the motor accsdent on 27.08.2008, the Tribunal awarded -a total sum of Rs.5,57,000/- as compensation atong with sntsrest @ 6% per annum from the date of fiiing of the claim petltion til! the date of actua' payment. 5. Shri H.P. Agrawat, tearned counsel for the appetlant vehementiy argued that the Tribunal has erred In awardlng excesslve compensation of Rs.5,57,000/- to the ciaimants. During the course of hearing, learned counse! for the appeilant/ insurance Company submitted that th.ough ths appeilant/ insurance Company had filed an application before the Tribuna! for grant of permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act to contest the ciaim on ali avsilable defenses, the same was dismissed by the Tribunal. Learned counse! fbr the y li % ? ® ® l %IS§ %Sf l IS appellant fairly conceded that the driver and owner of the offending vehicle had contested the claim before the Tribunal. 7. As the driver and owner of the offending vehicle contested the claim before the Tribunal and the appellant/ insurancs Company could not demonstrate either before the Tribunal or )efore us in this appeal that there was any coliuslon betv/een the claimants and the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, the nsurance Company before the ier Section 170 of the Motor appl'cation flled by the appeliant' Tribuna! for grant of permission un Vehicles Act, in our opinion, hss been rightly dismissed by the Tribunai. 8. The Apex Court while considering the permissibi'iity of chailenge to the qua.ntum of compensation by the insurer of the offendino. vehicle in the absence of permission undsr Section 1 70 of the Motor Ve'nicles Act in the case of c< r.ri. v; srs, reported in 2603 T.A.C. 293 (SC) observed in paras 31 & 32 as under: ^ "31. We have aireadv held that unlsss t'ne conditions precedent specified in Section 170 of 1988 Act is satisfied, Insurance Company 'nas no rioht of appeal to challenae the award on merits. However, in a situation '.vhere there is a collusion betwesn the clalmants and the insured or th( insured does not contest the ciairn and, further, the Tribunal cloes not, impiead the Insurance Company to contest the claim in such cases it is open to an insurer to seeR permission of the Tribuna! to contest the claim on the around available to thi r /'" -f~- ^ insured or to a person against whom a claim has been made. If permission is granted and the insurer is allowed to contest the ciaim on merits in that case it is open to the insurer tp file an appeal aaainst an award on merits, if aggrieved. !n any case where an application for permission is erroneousiy'rejected the insurer can challenae only that part ofths orderwhile filing appeal on grounds specified in sub-section (2) of Section 149 of 1' Act. But such appiication for permisslon has to be hnn^ f?rte ?^nd fll^ri ??t th?5 ?^t^na whon thi2 ln%}irari l' SsvSV Gi i'^ ;!!'CT^i Si'- i.i i'S; ^i.'S^S ~i;'¥i^S?ii »i1'S? i'. JC?\ni C^ i' !»/ r^nuirpid tn l^^d hl^ ?svidpnns ^n 'f^r ^^ nht??in'nr 5 ^T T^i ^M ^ S T ^-^ ^fT T." i ^wi \^f i 3 ^^' \dT u '.^ \dJ 1 ^fc ^ itf^-^dl ^*/ E*J L ih/d. i^ f ^ J ; £rnT~ coniDsnsation bv fraud bv ths claimant is '^.fi J'^u;Tl^^\L^ Tnu-r J n T^f "? ^i t :'^r.L Ui/i'k^ ^ 'f^ ^ tat 5 :r-t/ ^aif ^'l^A 3 j d 1 ^i^. i i <t S r;nnr;prr^?arl it is nn innn^?' r^v. jr^ffsnr^ th^ '<ufr'w;i "kT-'./i ; i^'iui. SS. s-aS i St-^ S\.)i;sw3^i ;'S^w' ii^i0'^s?£.l i.i iCi'i. S i Ciii^sl vitiates the entire proceedlng and in such cases it is open to an insurer to appiy to the Tribunal for rectification of av/ard. 32. For the reasons, our answer to the question is that even if no appeai is preferred under Sectlon 173 of 1988 Act by an insured against the award of Tribunal, it is not permissible for an insurer to fiie an appeal questiQning the quantum of compensation as well as findings as regards negligence or contributory negligence of the offendina vehjcle." Now reverting back to the present case, admittedly the appeliant / insurance Company in this appeal is chai'.enging the quantum of compensation alone. No permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act was granted by the Tribunal as ths appllcation filed^i'y the appellant / Insurance Company was' -") ,-wL- ^^gl^^l^^^s^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^%^^ dismissed by the Tribunal. No fault can be found with the order of the Tribunal dismissing the appellant's application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehiclss Act as the driver and owner of the offending vehicle contested the claim before the Tribunal and no material coUld be shown to indicate anv collusion between the clalmants and the driver' owner or the offending vehicle. As permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicies Act was refused to the appeilanfc' Insurance Company, the Insurance Company cannot be permitted to challenge the quantum of compensation in this appea! in view of the above quoted dictum ofthe Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rohtagl (supra). 10. We, therefore, do not fina' any scope for interference in this appeai fited by the appellant ./ Insurance Company against ths impugned award challeng'ng the quantum of compensation aione. 11. The aDpeal filed by the appellant/ Insurance Companv, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is herebv dismissed iummarily. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge nimm! vSiSif—L