IN THE HON'BLE GH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.(C) No. .). .0. J.^ OF 2009 fAPPEAL VALUED AT Rs.l.37.000/-y APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEffiCLES ACT. 1988, APPELANT (NON-APPLICAN1 NU.3) ....^^.^^ RESPONDENTS rAPPLICAND ( NON- APPLICANT No: 1) :2. (NON-APPLICANT N0.2) :3. United India Insurance Company Limited,through: Its Divisional Manager, Divisionat-Office, Main Road, Korba, Distt.-Korba (CG) VERSUS Naval Smgh, S/U-K.ancfaan simgti Gond, aged-44 years, R/0-Katkona, P.S. Khadgawan, Distt.-Koria (CG) At Present-Tikaripara-Andu, P.S.- Gourella, Tah.-Pendraroad, Distt.- Bilaspur(CG) Suresh Kumar, S/0-Ramchandra Chauhan, aged-38 years, R/0- vill.- Amadand, P.S.-Ramnagar, Distt.Anuppur(MP) Parasram, S/0-Babulal Chaudhary, R/0-vill.-Amadand, P.S.-Ramnagar, Distt.Anuppur(MP) T XI-HC—78 *11*1CT! (bHleh 3^ •^I'MICI'M, SiTi1yi<o, [qcll'MIJ,< ..W..A^.....;.......l.b.l..^.. "^2003 Sf^l X[?^T (1^<!^«<<^I) sn^iw R-ii'* ^TT 3TT^T i^^i^ TOITW ^Rftff an^i S.B. Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Aas 24.07.2009 Shri Dashrath Gupta, Advo< Heard onadmission. The instant appeal is dir4 company, challenging the quant) award dated 09.03.2009, passed Ciaims Tribuna! (FTC), Pendrarcjad Tribunal'), in claim case No. 20/2^ amount of Rs. 1,37.000/- has beet The appe'lant/insurance order/permission granted by the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'M' chal!enge the quantum of award. S'nri Gupta, counsel for t] fairly submits that neither any a( Tribunal nor any order has bee| Section 170 of the MV Act,as a the case. It is well settled principle of cannot file an appeal on the qi|iestion being any permission under Secti) +l^<rl4i'1 ^liHdf'^ fst<l <F*)<-$K ^affinaii^t rwal ;ate for the appellant. cted by the appellanVinsurance jm of compensation against the by the Additional Motor Accidents !, Distt. Bilaspur (for short 'the )08, whereby and whereunder an i awarded. |company has not filed any 'ribunal under Section 170 of the l/ Act'), so as to enable them to |ie appellant/insurance company p^ilication has been filed before the |i passed by the Tribuna! under blwner and Driver were contestinci law that the Insurance company of quantum without their bn170oftheMVAct. T 'S^ -^iw<i, •si\i\w\e, hwvy. WHC1T a»*1iqi •^200 sn^r 'VR! ('^ifg'r^i) an^tw l^-fi'*' "tT^T 3TI^T »H wiiw ^iftff sn^B Shri Gupta placed his relian the High Court of Patna in thi Company and Another v. Diva Sl- in 2007 (3) TAC 375 (Pat.), and si examined in the matter, and in court can Interfere in judgment o1 principies of law or awarded very compensation. 1 have heard the counsel fc Law has now been settled by th^ Court that Insurance Company c^ obtains permission of Tribunal un(] the absenceof permission underl insurer of theoffending vehicie the quantum ofthe compensation.| The Supreme Court in the Ltd. V. Nicolletta Rohtagi and Q\ 293 (SC), while considering th< appeal by the insurer of the offe| compensationawarded by the Tr| 32 as under: "31. We have already helc| precedent specified in Sectioi| <^>v^<?i<fti +iwciT ^f fs^ <f^^i< «K3TfOT3TI^[ !|;e upon the judgment passed by matter of Oriental Insurance jankar Rai alias Pappu, reported jibmits that as the Doctor was not ^xceptional cases the appellate Tribunal when it applied wrong low or too excessive amount of ^r appellant, perused the record. various judgments of Supreme jnnot prefer any appeal unless it |er Section 170 of the MV Act. In ISection 170 of the MV Act, the cjannot be permitted to chal!enge (natter of Natlonal Insurance Co. |hers, reported in 2003 (3) TAC permissibility of chaDenge in |iding vehicle to the quantum of Ibunal observed in oaras 31 and that unless the conditions 170 of 1988 Act is satisfied, r C—7S 'S'ST ^|4||d<1, ®Ti1+1<l(o, f°1MI'H>i< tnHipfi ^»*ii<»» 3II^¥IW R-fi«t> '^t 3TT^?T ^w^ p' t Sahu sn^i •iraqr ('yf^'i^) TCmre'afsa sii^i an Insurance Company has the award on merits. Howev^r a collusion between the clal insured does not contest thel does not, implead the lnsur|ance claim in such cases it is permission ofthe Tribunal to available to the insured or to has been made. If permissi4n ailowed to contest the claim to the insurer to file an appegji aggrieved. in any case wheije is erroneously rejected the part of the order while filing sub-section (2) of Section application for permission ha^ stage when the insured is far as obtaining compensatii)n concerned, it is no longer r^ entire proceeding and in suc| to apply to the Tribunal for 32. For the reasons, our ansv if no appeal is preferred unde: insured against the award of for an insurer to file an apD^al contribytorv nei3ligence_of thetoffending vehicie." Therefore, by applying the| law to the facts of the case on h< te made out, the appeal is tiable ti| at motion stage. ^>I^i(tt<ft'! tTTfl^f ^f 'ft^t <(^+^1< ^sifro sii^i (io right of appeal to chailenge in the situation where there !s Imants and the insured or the lclaim and, further the Tribunal >ur|ance Company to contest the lopen to an insurer to seek sontest the claim on the ground ^ person against whom a claim is granted and the insurer is ^n merits in that case it is open against an award on merits, if iei|e an application for permissio" i(isurer can challenge only that ^ppeal on grounds specified in 1149 of 1988 Act. But such to be bona fide and filed at the reduired to !ead his evidence. So by fraud by the claimant is integra that fraud vitiates the |i cases it is open to an insurer redtification of award. ^er to the question is that even Section 173 of 1988 Act by an ^ Tribunal, it is not permissible questioning the auantum of compensation as v/ell as findinas as reaards neaiiaence or above we!l settled prindples of nd, wherein no exceptional case be and is accordingly dlsmissed N.K. Agrawa!;.