IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.(C) No-S^Z/.0 OF 2009 fAPPEAL VALUED AT Rs 77,940 /-) ^PQiS SJgflSll APPEAL UNDER_SECTIQN173_O^L3HE_MQTORVEHICLESACT, 1988. APPELLANT (NON- APPLICANT No-3) . ^.-. ,^ ^-"[i^p' L3^v^^ .^).' ^-9^ •^ -}D RESPONDENTS (APPLICANT) United India Insurance Company Limited, Through: Its Branch Manager, Branch-Office, Kamthee Line, Rajnandgaon,Distt.-Rajnandgaon (CG) VERSUS 1t" Ramu Yadav, S/0- Punaram 1- Yadav , aged-45years, R/0 Vm.-Padkibhat, Post-Tekapar, P.S. 85 Tah. Balod, Distt. Durg (C.G.) (NON-APPLICANT N0.1) (NON-APPLICANT N0.2) .^ Mohanlal Nahta, aged-55 years, S/0 Girdharilal Nahta, R/O-Vill Umradah, P.S. SsTah. - Balod, Distt. Di.u-g (C.G.) :3. Devansh Kumar Sahu,aged-32 Years, S/0-Samliyaram Sahu, R/0- Vffl. -latabod, P.S. 8s Tah.- Balod, Distt. Durg (C.G.) !>1, ^ / •^r^ HIGH CQURT OF CHHATrjSGA^H AT BiLASPU^ I.A.tCl N0.37 OF India Insurance Company -APPUCANT RESPONDENTS United Limited Versus Ramu Yadav and others. o/ f> M.A.(C) N0. 39 OF 2010 APPELLANT (NON-APPLICANT RESPONDENTS India Insurance Company United Limited Versus Shakun Bai Yadav and others. Present : Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsel for the appellant. APPEAL UNDER SECT10N 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE! ACT.1888 (Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.) (Passed on 20th day ofJanuary, 2010) Both the above appeals are being disposed of by the common order as the common question of taw is involved in both 'tfte appeals. 2. These are insurer's appeal fited against the award dated 24-08-2009 passed in Claim Case No.89/2009 and 90/2009 by Additional' Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (F.T.C.) Balod, District Durg (for short 'the Tribunal'), whereby and whereunder an amount of Rs.77,940/- for the injury sustained by respondent No.l/daimant (M.A.(C) No.37/2010) and Rs.1,89,000/- for the death of deceased Soman Yadav (M.A.(C) No.39/2010) has been awarded against the appellant as well as respondents No. ^..r-'s ^A\ respondents No. 2 & 3 atong with interest @ 6% per annum from the date ofthe appiication till its actual payment. 3. Learned counsel for the appeilant submits that the iearned Tribunal has erred in awarding compensation to the claimants against the appellant as well as against. respondents No. 2 & 3 inasmuch as the offending vehicie was not involved in the accident. Therefore, the award deserves to be set aside. 4. Undisputedly, the appellant has not obtained any permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the Act'), to contest the case on any of the grounds that are available to the person against whom the claim has been made. 5. It is trite iaw that without obtaining permission under Section 170 of the Act, the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company is not competent on atl the grounds which are availabte to the person against whom the claim has been made and the scope of appeal would be limited to the extent of challenge on the grounds which are available to the Company under Section 149(2) of the Act. 6. The Supreme Court in case of Nattonal Insurance Co. Lfd. ChandSgarti v. Mcolletta Rohtagl and Otfter; reported in (2002) 7 SCC 486 has observed as under: 'We have already held that unless the conditions precedent specified in Secfion 170 of 1988 Act are satisfied, an insurance company has no right of appeal to chalienge the award on merits. However, in a situation where there is a collusion betweerrthe claimants and the insured or the insured does not contest the claim and, further, the Tribunal does not implead the insurance company to contest the clatm, in such cases it is open toan insurer to seek permission ofthe tribunal to contest the claim on the ground av;ailable to the insured or to a person against whom a plaim has been made. tf permission is granted and the insurer is allowed to contest the ciaim on merits, in that csfse it Is open to the n^ Kvr insurer to flte an appeal against an award on merits, if aggrieved. In any case where an application for permission is erroneously rejected the insurer can chailenge only that part of the order while fiiing appeal on grounds specified in sub-section (2) of Section 149 of 1988 Act. But such application for permission has to be bona fide and filed at the stage when the insured is required to lead his evidence. So far as obtaining compensation by fraud by the ctaimant.js concerned, it is no tonger resintegra that fraud vitiates the entire proceeding and in such cases it is open to an insurer to apply to the Tribunal for rectification ofaward." 7. By applying above referred proposition of law in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is crystal clear that the appeal has not been preferred by the appellant chaltenging the award on the grounds which are available to it under Section 149(2) of the Act and, therefore, the appeal being fited on the grounds availabte to the person against whom the claim has been made without obtaining any permission under Section 170 ofthe Act, is not maintainable. 8. In view of above, the appeals being not maintainable liable to be and are hereby dismissed at admission stage. Sd/- N.K.Aganf/a! -ludtie ^ r .^'