MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL N0. 4‘7! OF 2004 WW MISCELLAN EOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 1KMOTOR VEHICLE ACT Appellant National Irisurance Company (insurer) ’Ltd; through its Asstt. Manager, National Insurance Company, B-l Taha Complex, 2nd Floor, 63>. %"*W Ring Road No.2, Priyadarshani ' xiiiw Nagar, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) Versus éa xéd Respondent (Driver of vehicle) 1. Ramayan Das S/o Dubraj Das Panika, Aged about 29 years, R/o Kenadand, P.S. &Tah. Katghora, Distt. Korba. Respondent 2. Govinram Chablani (Owner of Vehicle) S/o Murlidhar Chablani Through Bharat Trading Company, , Shadam Market BanJarI Road, Raipur, Tah. & Distt. Raipur RESPONDENTS 3.) Saroj Bai W/o Samar Singh (Claimants) ’ Dhanuhar, Aged about 30 years. 4.; Ratan Singh, S/o Samar Singh Dhanuhar, aged about 14 years (SLNO. 3 &4 are R/o Viil. Banbandha (Lafa) P.S. &Tah. Pali, Distt. Korba, \\\\ Present address Vill Kasnia P S & \ \Tah Katghora Distt Korba \ (Chhattisgarh) \Qfaop d } E" ”IA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR M. A. No. 471 0f 2004 Appellant National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Respondents Ramayan Das 85 others APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 DB: Hon’ble Shri I. M. Quddusi 8L Hon’ble Shri N. K. Agarwal, JJ Shri Sanjay K. Agarwal, Advocate with Shri Sourabh Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Sunil Otwani, Advocate for the respondents No. 3 and 4. ORDER (Oral) ( Passed on this 19th day of October, 2010 ) Per I. M. Quddusi, J. Heard. The instant appeal arises from the award dated 3.2.2004, passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba, in Claim Case No. 29/2003. The facts in brief are that the claimants/respondents No. 3 and 4, eing legal heirs of the deceased Samar Singh filed a claim case for award of total compensation of Rs. 23,51,200/— under various heads, before the Tribunal. The case of the claimants was that on 13. 1.2003 when'Samar Singh was waiting to cross the road near bus stand Rajkamma, at that time the vehicle — Santro car, having registration No. C.G. O4/B — 1559, owned by the respondent No.2 and insured by the appellant, was being driven by the respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, hit the deceased. As a result of the accident deceased received grievous injuries. The deceased was taken to the hospital where he succumbed to the injuries on 16. 1.2003. Learned Tribunal having considered the facts and evidence on record, granted the award of Rs. 4,42,800/- with 9% interest p.a. from the date of the application. Being aggrieved, the appellant insurance company has filed the instant appeal. b Indisputably, thC appellant - Insurance Company has not obtained the permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which reads as under : “170. Impleading insurer in certain cases.—Where in the course of any inquiry, the Claims Tribunal is satisfied that‘~ (a) there is collusion between the person making the claim and the person against whom the claim is made, or (b) the person against whom the claim is made has failed to contest the claim, it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, direct that the insurer who may be liable in respect of such claim, shall be impleaded as a party to the proceeding and the insurer so impleaded shall thereupon have, without prejudice to the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of section 149, the right to contest the claim on all or any of the grounds that are available to the person against whom the claim has been made.” Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nicolletta Rohtagi and others 2003 (3)'TAC 293 (SC) has 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. In view of the above settled pesition of law, the instant appeal on ehalf of the appellant Insurance Company, in absence of permission under Seé‘tion 170 of the Act, 1988, is not maintainable and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. sul- - . d W j I.M.Qudd"5i, Sd/- 1,,7.—/‘ Judge l / N11. i nudge AGARWAL , b f