A-F-'!\. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SSNHA, J. APPELLANT (Non-applicant) RESPONDENTS 1 Applicant No.1 ADDlicant No.2 2 Applicant No.3 I.A.(ClNo.296of2006 United India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Main Road, Korba, Tah. & Distt. Korba (C.G.) VERSUS Smt.Meera Bai Nikunj, W/o Late Sughanram, aged 43 years Ajay Kumar Nikunuj, S/o late Sughanram Nikunj, aged about 23 years Shiv Kumar Nikunj, S/o Late Sughanram Nikunj, aged about 21 years Applicant No.4 4 Brijesh Kumar Nikunj, S/o late Sughanram Nikunj, aged about 19 years All are R/o Quarter No.1069, Krishna Vihar, Jamnapali, NTPC, Korba (C.G.) Kamdeo @ Guddu, S/o Shri Vasudeo Chauhan, aged about 22 years, R/o Gopalpur (Punarwas Colony)^& Qr. No.AB-1157-58 Yam'una Vihar Block B Jamnapali, P.S. Darri, Tah. & Distt. Korba (C.G.) (Driver) MEMO OF MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTORVEHICLES ACT. 1988 Non-applicant No.1 5 Present: Shri Dasarath Gupta,counsel forthe appellant. ORDER (18th November, 2009) ^<€^ /'/" a &. y '%,. S|^»xfif The fotlowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Learned counsel for the appellant is heard on MCP No.2103/2006, a petition for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, the grounds taken in the application, and the circumstances leading to the filing of the review petition by the appellant / Insurance Company before the Tribunal which came to be dismissed vide order dated 04.07.2006, we are satisfied that the appellant / Insurance Company has succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. 3) MCP No.2103/2006, therefore, is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Shri Dasarath Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant is heard on admission. 5) This is insurer's appeal against the impugned award dated 19.04.2005, passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba (Tor short 'the Tribunal') in CT No. 90/2004. 6) As against the compensation of Rs.65,00,000/- claimed by respondents No.1 to 4 / claimants, unfortunate widow and children of deceased Sughanram Nikunj by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for his death in the motor accident on 14.01.2004, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.18,74,216/- as compensation alona with interest @ 9% that case it is open to the insurer to file an appeal against an award on merits, if aggrieved. In any case where an application for permission is erroneously rejected the insurer can challenge only that part of the order while filing appeal on grounds specified in sub-section (2) of Section 14Q of 1988 Act. But such application for permission has to be bona tide and filed at the stage when the insured is required to lead his evidence. Sp far as obtaining compensation by fraud by the claimant is concemed, it is no longer res integra that fraud vitiates the entire proceeding and in such cases it is open to an insurer to apply to the Tribunal 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 Tribunal, it is not permissible for an insurer to file an appeal questioning the quantum of compensation as well as flndings as regards negligence or contributory negligence of the offending vehicle." 9) Admittedty, the appellant / Insurance Company was not granted permission by the Tribunal to contest the claim on all available defenses under Section 170 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The appellant / Insurance Company, therefore, in view of the above quoted dictum of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nicolletta Rohtagi and others (supra) cannot be permitted to challenge the quantum of compensation awarded bythe Tribunal. . -^-"aa ^' 10) As the appellant / Insurance Company has not taken any other ground for challenging the impugned award in this appeal, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. /"p?^. ,1 Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- SunU Kumar Sinha Judge