“gm ,rrf tv mm w HZHEMEQE 8GB. Om.Qgg EH.wgwg 3?2o. 93‘ has x K.» >ww§§ ‘ u wGag Emma gm g aha. Eggchw mga‘ §%a wwQaaoba0R3 g A009. H. ggggg QaZgg igwgwmam. wmmwOZUmZH u GE Zeb wmmwOZUMZA. u a! N. gum g Aug Zak <<\o g g g >wmaw £85 ¢Nwg‘ WmmwOZUE/Q u f w. gong.» g g Zaw <<m\c gw Zwg H955“.gm»? >mwmwwoaN9u~mB$ awOZUwZH u a/ p. g WE gm»? Egg 20b m\o gm 2mg g KEaE‘ gagmg wv~mm3 HawOZUmZH u «Im. g5 0—333.” Zeb U\o gm 2&3, 555“; ggnar . >mmng awg‘ wmmwOEMmZH u f m. NgE ~93? 335mb gZcb U\o Em Zmmggg >mmm. mg puEBm‘ \ wk U\o Em Z§ ggnn—nn? >m¢n§~u~mw5 y‘ «04¢ LL “Lax. §m§9§3§29¢bmm~u§wumgon dgmggnauHaééga 0%; 43 A, <§ amrmww. mogawvg mamdwmAnOL _1 §ZUMZH u w. . manggwNEH—3?? Egg 29H m\ gagma we? >mmnavg weuEEm 3‘wwWavamvm093% g gnu. mag Ann; Un<$. _ $0262 Q/ N Nair b w ‘ §g£o§§¢<§ vb. IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPU MA. No. 657/2002 APPELLANT United India Insurance Company Ltd. Versus RESPONDENTS Ram Kishun Mandal and others DB:- HON’BLE SHRI LM. QUDDUSI 8r. HQN’BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, JJ ORAL ORDER . (4—10—2010) Per NK Agarival, J. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/United Insurance Company Ltd. against the award dated 7—5-2002 passed by the Vth Additional Motor Aecident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, Sarguja in Claim Case No. 5/2002 on the two grounds namely the amount of compensation awarded is shockingly on higher side and the offending vehicle i.e. Jeep was being used in violation of the terms of the policy i.e. the Jeep was insured as a private vehicle whereas it was being used as a taxi carrying 9 passengers including the deceased. Facts of the case in brief are that on 26-6—2000, the driver of the jeep bearing registration No. MP 27/B— 3356, in which deceased Neeraj Kumar Mandal was also travelling, dashed a scooter by driving the jeep in a rash and negligent manner as a result of which the jeep turned turtle and Neeraj Kumar Mandal died due to the injuries sustained in the accident. The claimants being father, mother, wife and children filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, PRESENT :— Shri Ajay Mishra, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Atanu Ghosh, Advocate for respondent No. 1 to 7. H R 1988 claiming Rs. 25,00,000/— as éompensation for Learnedt Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the submissions made, evidence led and material placed, awarded compensation of Rs. 15,12,000/— to the claimants holding the appellant liable to pay‘! the compensation. So far as quantum is concerned, it appears that permission under Section 170 of the Act to contest the claim on all or any of the grounds that are, available to the person against vyhom the claim has been made was “riot granted to the appellant/Insurance Company and this fact has not been disputed by the learned counse appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company. 5. Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Nicolletta Rohtagi and others; reported in 2003 (3) TAC 293 (SC), has held in para 31 of the judgment which is reproduced as under: “3 l. We have already held that unless the conditions precedent specified in Section 170 of 1988 Act is satisfied, Insurance Company has no right of appeal to challenge the award on merits ............. ” 6. In view of the above settled position, the instant appeal challenging the quantum of compensation filed on behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company in absence of the permission under Section 170 of the Act, 1988 is not maintainable. 7. So far as the second ground raised by learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, we have perused the record of the Tribunal. According to the policy of insurance available on record, the appellant/Insurance Company has undertaken risk of 9 passengers by l charging additional premium of Rs. 500/— for it, therefore, it cannot be said that in the instant case, the deceased was not insured or covered under the policy. Besides this, the appellant had not led anyVeVidence showing use of offending vehicle in violation of conditions of the policy. 8. In view of the above, the above ground raised is also sans substance. 9. For the foregoing, the appeal being devoid of substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. VT‘he cross—objection’ filed by the claimants is also U dismissed as not pressed. Sd/- I.M. QUDDUSI Stil- N. K. Agarwalhw Judge Judge