w: s HiGHCOyRTORaCi-IHATTISGARHATBILASPUR Appeliants IVI.A.fONO. 634 of 2009 The Oriental Jnsurance Company Limited, Permanand Bhawan, Rajendra Park Chook, Durg, distt. Durg (CG) Through Djvisional Manager, Divisiona! OfRce Durg7Durg(CG). \j Respondents 1. Ganesh Mandavi S/o Ghyan Singh Mandavi, aged about 32 years, R/o village and Post Badgaon, Tah. Pakhanjur Distt. Kanker (CG). 2. Omprakash Alias Prakash Kumar Sahu, S/o Hemlai Sahu, aged about 29 years, R/o village and Post Badgaon, Tah. Pakhanjur Distt .Kanker (GG). Misc. Appeal (Claim) UnderSection 173 oflVlotprVehiclesAct, 1988 (SinaSe Bench: Hon'bie Mr. N.K^ Aaarwal. J.) Preserit : ShriVipin'Fhwai'i.AdvocatefbFtheappellant. None for the respondents. V- -..• (Passed on29th day ofApril, 2009) Heard on admission. ; 1. This appeal is directed against no fault award dated 5-2-2009 passed by f' :: • : ' ^ . - ' ^ theAdditional Motor Accident Claims Tribunai (FTC), Balod, Distt. Durg in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 32/2008 hoidjng the claimant permanently disabied in terms ofSection 142 of the Mptor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, hereinafier referred to as 'the Act') andthereby passed an award of Rs.25,000/- as compensation underSection 140 oftheAct. 2. Shri Tiwari, ,'earned counsel forthe appellant did notraise anyground which is available to the Insuranc®Company under Section 147 or Section 149 of the Act and the only conterition raised by him is that iearned Tribunal erred in awardingthe compensafion under Section 140 ^. ^ ~7~ :t Sahu ofthe Act by taking into consideration the certificate of disability which has been issued by a private doctor. 3. This appeal deserves to be dismissedon two grounds; first indisputably, in relation to a third party, the grounds upon which the insurer can deny its liability are containeci in sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the Act. Ordinariiy, insurance company would have no right to question-'the quantum of compensation in absence of any leave having been granted in its favourin terms of Section 170 ofthe Act. It is notin dispute that the appiication under Section 170 6f ths Act has been dismissed by learned trial Gourt. Secondly merely because the certificate of permanent disability was issued by the doctor of a private hospitai and was not issued by the doctor of a Govemment hospital, it cannot be said that based on such certificate, award underSection 140 offhe Actcannot be 4. in this view of the matter above, this appeal preferred by the appellant is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. ; .'.';:;" ~—~—~ .N.K.Agraya!;'. Judge v r-i