^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH AT BILASPUR Coram : HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEVOUpTA. CJ. & HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Misc. Appeai (C ) No. 1059 of 2008 APPELLANT: 1NSURER RESPONDENT No.3 G. iCICI Lombard General insurance Co. Ltd., IC1C! Towers, Bandra Kuria Compiex, Bandra (East) Mumbal, Through it's Legai Manager. 3rd Fioor, Shopping Compiex, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Lai G.E. Ganga Road, Versus RESPONDENTS CLAIIVIANTS No.1 RESPQNDENT No.2 No.4. Rahin Bai, wife of late Shri Punj Ram, aged about 45 years Urmiia Bai, wife of Late Shri Girja Prasad, aged about 19 years Both residents of JagdaSla (Dangbora), Gram Panchayat Bailachuwa; Thana Shakti, Tehsi! Shakti, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattlsgarh jVi/s Bhukhari Associates, C/o Pappu Road Llnes, Tatl Bandha, Rajpur, District Raipur, Chhattlsgarh [TRUCKOVVNER] Phooi Singh, son of Shri Sultan Slngh, aged not known to the appeilant, Meena Hali, Near Moti La! Petro! Pump, Parsada, Thana Chakarbhata, District Biiaspur, Chhattisgarh [ DRiVER] Subhash Chandra Garg, son of not known to the appeilant, age not known to the appellant, Garg News Agency, Shakti, Dlstrict Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh [BOLERO OWNER] ^H^ RESPONDENT No.5 6. United Indla insurance Company Ltd., Through Branch Manager, Transport Nagar, Korba, District Korba, Chhattlsgarh MEMORANDUM OFAPPEALUNDER_S.ECTLQNJI10F THE SVIQTOR VEHSCLES ACT. 1988 Present: Shri Amrito Das, counsej for the appeiiant. ^th OR D E R (18tn August, 2008) The foiiowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J.: On due consideration, JA No.1/2008 is ailowed and the delay in fiiing the appeai is hereby condoned. 2) Shri Amrito Das, iearned counsel for the appeliant is heard on admlssion. 3) This Is insurer's appeal against the award dated 11.02.2008 passed by Additionai Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (t'or short 'the Tribunai') Shakti; District - Janjgir Champa in motor ciaim case No.96/2006. 4) Learned counse! for the appellant fajrly conceded that the oniy challenge in this appeai fiied by the tnsurer js to the quaRtum of compensation awarded by the Tribunai and permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicjes Act (for short 'the Act') was not granted by the Tribuna! as the appeiiant / insurance Company never fiied any application for arant of permission under Section 170 of the Act. 5) The Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Llmlted Vs Nicoiietta Rohtagi and others, reported In 2003 (3) TAC 293 (SC) observed in para 31 and 32 as below : " 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 appeai to chaiienge the award on merits. However, in a sltuation where there is a coiiusion between the daimants and the insured or the insured does not contest the ciaim and, further, the Tribunai does not, impiead 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 availabie to the insured or to a person against whom a ciaim has been made. if permission is granted and the Insurer is aiiowed to contest the ciaim on merits in that case it is open to the insurer to flle an appeal against an award on merits, if aggrieved. In any case where an appiication for permission is erroneousiy rejected the insurer can chafienge only that part of the order while filing appeai on grounds specified in sub-sectlon (2) of Section 149 of 1988 Act. But such appiication for permission has to be bona fide and filed at the stage when the Insured is required to Jead his evidence. So far as obtaining compensation by fraud by the claimant is concerned, it is no ionger res integra that fraud vitiates the entire proceeding and jn such cases it is open to an insurer to appiy to the Tribunai for rectification of award 32. For the reasons, our answer to the question Is that even if no appeal is preferred under Section 173 of 1988 Act by an insured against the award of a Tribunai, it is not permjssible for an jnsurer to fiie an appea.l questionlng the -.^^^,,, /y^ '\ / A.....2 ^ I 1 Vfe^ quantum of compensation as weii as findings as regards negligence or contributory negligence of the offending vehicle." 6) In view of the above quoted dictum of the Apex Court In the Case of Natjona! Insurance Ccmpany (supra), the appeal fiied by the appeilant / insurance Company chaiienging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunai in the absence of permission under Section 170 ofthe Act to contest the daim on ai! available defenses, is liabJe to be dismissed. 7) The appeai, therefore, Is dismissed summariiy. Sd/- Chief Justice padma Sd/- Sunil KumarSinha Judge