IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.3636 of 2008(O&M) Date of decision: 16.12.2009 M/s Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd. .....Appellant Versus Smt. Sudesh Sharma w/o Rakesh and others ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the appellant-Insurance Company. Mr. Ravinder Malik, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 5. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) This is insurer's appeal challenging the impugned award on the issue of quantum of compensation only. Under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the insurer can challenge the award on the question of quantum, if permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was granted by the Tribunal allowing the Insurance Company to take all those defences/grounds to defend the claim petition which are available to driver/owner of the offending vehicle. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant in this case is that an application for permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed on 11.10.2007 before the Tribunal which however, was not decided by it and thus, the impugned award is liable to be set aside. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that from 11.10.2007 till 21.5.2008 i.e the date of passing of the impugned award, the matter remained pending before the Tribunal and the appellant never raised any objection with regard to the disposal of its application for permission under Section 170 of FAO No.3636 of 2008(O&M) -2- the Motor Vehicles Act. Even no such objection was raised by the appellant at the stage of arguments before the Tribunal at the time of passing of the impugned award. Even otherwise from the perusal of the impugned award, it is manifestly clear that no such objection was raised in its pleadings by the appellant and while deciding issue No.1, the Tribunal has given a finding that it was a case of contributory negligence. In view of the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to accept the plea as raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. I find no merit in this appeal. Dismissed. December 16, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE