AP?EAL UNDER W ”’“EL I Eagdaipur? mugh DuusmnaE Ofh€e$ 1 Bilaqmr (CG). —- : Q . 1 § Ema, a0 years, gEgPONDEm W/u SonSangh @ajxmm No.1 2,? 3m mgh, 83 yam mmNDENT : j/ 3 f0 Sukm- No.2 e ,xdaimalli Bffh R: G ¥7d1age~Pa§h $°‘ & ?ost~ Kaxya Band, ' Ra Paxpii, En 5 3. 9mg Sadg 3am. R§FQ3NDENT : ,, / E f0 Made }}m (3ft) Ehala ma, E&@&a§f N01 1m Céndamma §h¢ Eda Jam: hm, jag§a1§m1¥ {LG}. _ mv , Kama} {lea Em; RESFUNDEQT : }4. / Sfo Sadanami 31m, i/De‘imaanmmz i QR) Baa Bazar, kgdalpur, Easter {Q Owner ~ MOiDRVEHICLES ACT! @ V HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. No. 217/2004 M‘l‘mLLANT Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Versus 13 Ilim'YQNDENTS Bijia and others ”IL. IION’BLE SHRI I M. QUDDUSI & m m nLE SHRI N K AGARWAL, JJ NHWIBNT :— ‘Hm Ajay Mishra Advocate for the appellant ‘Hni Subhash Yadav Adv for respondents No 1 and 2 o R A L o R D E R (79—2010) Pm LM. guddusi, J 9 . This appeal has been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company against the impugned award dated 30—10—2003 passed by the 11nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar at Jagdalpur in Claim Case No. 193/2002 challenging the quantum of compensation. In this case, no permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been obtained and the same is also not available on record. Learned counsel for the appellant is also unable to show the permission. In the absence of permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, this appeal isnot maintainable on the point of quantum. As such, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. ‘ T Sdl- x w '-M-Quddusi l Judge sw— I N.K,AGARWAL Judge