"\ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAI^NO. 4*^ 'LOF-2006 APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 ^" Appellant bn-Applicant no. 4 ^United India Insurance Company Limited, City Branch Office, Jeevan Beema Marg, Amar Complex, Pandri, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Versys ^Respondents '>• 1. ^' ^JW w < 2./ Simanchan S/o Late Jagannath Gour, aged about 47 years, R/o Madar Teresa Nagar, House No. 46/15, BhilaiCamp 1,through Saddam Travels, Kachehari Chowk, Raipur (CG) Non-Applicant No. 1 Sunil Bhalkar, S/o Narayan Rao Bhalkar, aged about 36 years, R/o Tatibandh, Raipur Near Bharatmata School, through Saddam Travels, Kachehari Chowk, Raipur Non-Applicant no. 2 't- Nazma Khatoon, D/o^ufel Ahmad, W/o Abrar Ahmad, aged about 39 years, R/o Moudahapara, Raipur, Proprietor - Saddam Travels, Kachehari Chowk, Raipur (CG) Non-Applicant no. 3 4y Smt. Manjeet Kaur, W/o Shri Singara Singh, aged about 45 g^ years, R/o Nayapara, t!NY Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (CG) Claimant Claim in Appeal for settinci aside / modification of the award, valued at Rs^7,22,000/- (Rupees SevenLacs Twentv Two Thousand only) 3.. ^ ^ \i^^"- HISH COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR DB : HON'BLE I.M.QUbDUSI ^ HON'BLE Q. MINHAJUD&IN. JJ. M.^(O.No.462/2006 Aepellant R®spond©nts United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Simancha! and others Present^ M.r. Sanjay S, Agrawal, counse! for the appeibnt. Mr. ft. N. Jha, counsel for respondent No.4. ORDER (Orai) (12th September, 201^) I,M.__QuddvsJ, J; 4. The appeliant-Insurance Company has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicies Act, 1988 against the award dated 07.07,2006 passed by the iearned IIIrd Additlonal Motor Accident Ctaims Trsbunal, Durg {CG) (for brevit^ 'the claims tribunai') in Claim Ca% No<77/2005 fastening the liability on the non-app!icants including the appeltant insurance company to satisfy the award. On account of Injuries sustained by Smt. Manjit Singh in the accident met with by Vehicle bearing Regn.No. C.(5.04"E/0364, she has filed a claim petition before the cbims tribuna! seeking a total compensation of Rs.25,90,000/-. The claims tribunal vide impugned award dated 07.07.2006 ailowed the daim petition of the injured claimant oind awarded a sum of Rs,722DOO/~ as compensation aiong with interest ©6% p,a. from the date of flling of the claim petition till the date of reaiisation, We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the claims tribuna!. ^.^^w^ ^' <w 5. From perusalof the record/ it is evident that the appelfant - Insurance Company has not obtained the permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 170 read as under:- "Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads as under: "170. Imp!@ading insurer m c@rtain cases.—Wherein the course of any inquiry, the Claims Tribunai is satisfied that - (a) there is coiiusion between the person making the ciaim and the person against whom the ciGim is made, or (b) the person against whom the claim is made has failed to contest the claim, it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, direct that the insurer who may be iiabie in respect of such ciaim, shaii be impfeaded as a party to the proceeding and the insurer so impieaded shall thereupon have, without prejudice to the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of section 149, the right to contest the claim on ail or any of the grounds that are available to the person against whom the claim has been made," 6, The Insurcnce Company was so!e!y responsible to see that its appiication should have been decided but in the instant case, it failed to press the application and as such if an application was not pressed durin9 the entire pendency of the claim petition, it is not open for the Insurance Company to plead that its apptication u/s 170 of the Act to contest remained undecided, The purpose of filing of apptication u/s 170 of the Act is that the insurer may 9et the right to contest but in this case, the Tribunal has crossed the stage of filing of written Statement which has already been filed by it, thereafter started recording evsdence and tsll then the insurer did not press the appiication. If the snsurer was not cautious from the very fceginning that it should have obtained permission by pressing application which was not pressed, then it is not open for the insurer to say that ,lts application seeking permission u/s 170 of the Act remained pending, 7, In the above back ground, Hon'ble the Apex Court in case of Shankarayyes V. United India Insurancc CQ. Ltd., AIR 1998 SC ^jP^heid ttiat the Insurance Company when impleaded as party by ^r^ms^ •^ ...^ ^^ /^-^^ "^ ^' i ..:" ^ *l8l8t% ^ \.' 8. the Tribunal can be permitted to contest the proceedings on merits only if the conditions precedent mentioned in Section 170 are found to be satisfied and for that purpose the Insurance Company has to obtdn order in writing from the Tribuna! which shouid be a reasoned order by the Tribunal and unless that procedure is fo!lowed the Insurance Company cannot have a wider defence on merits than what is available to it by way of statutory defence. The same view was reiterated in series of other decisions inciuding Rlta (Smt.) and ^ N€W India Assurancc €0. Ltd ^nd 5 S€€113 wherein the Apex Court he!d that if the Insurance Company had not obtdned permission from the Tribuna! before filing the appeal, the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company before the High Court wouid not be maintainable in bw, Further in the matter of NQtlonel InsurQmc CempQny Ltd. Vs. Nfco!!etf'Q Rohfagl ond ofhers reported in (2002) 7 SCC 456 it has been obseryed that "we have already he!d that unless the conditions precedent specified in Section 170 of 1988 Act is satisfied, Insurance Company has no right of oppea! to challenge the award on merits." In view of the above settled position of law, the instant oppeat on behalf of the appellant Insurance Company, in absence of permission under Section 170 of the Act 1988, is not maintainabie and the same is dismissed as such. No order as to costs^ Sd/- Sd/- G.Mmhajuddin LM.Quddusi Judge Rao