The insurer's right of appeal is limited and circumscribed by the defences available to the insured under Section 149(2) and Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

( 1 ) THIS appeal arises from the judgment and award dated 9. 10. 1997 delivered by the motor accidents claims tribunal, chintamani (civil judge and j. m. f. c. , chintamani ). The facts of the case in the nutshell are that the claimant- respondent, who filed the claim petition No. 369 of 1985 was a lady medical officer, who was proceeding on 21. 2. 94 at 7. 30 a. m. Towards the bus-stop near raghavendra mutt, Bangalore road, chintamani, to go to kaiwara. According to the claimant's case respondent No. 1 came driving his scooter rashly and negligently and when he was in his effort to overtake the tractor coming towards chintamani on Bangalore - chintamani road, dashed against the claimant-respondent and caused her grievous injury resulting in permanent disablement. The number of the scooter has been mentioned as ka-07 e-5432. According to the claimant due to accident she sustained permanent disablement and injuries, namely, (1) genu valgum, (2) joint stiffness, (3) lateral osteoarthritis. She had suffered pain and agony. According to the claimant she was indoor patient in snr hospital, kolar for about three months and thereafter she was treated as an outdoor patient. Claimant asserted that she is unable to work since after the accident and was advised to take treatment for two more years. The claimant made a claim for a sum of Rs. 6,00,000 as compensation.

( 2 ) THE insurance company, i. e. , respondent No. 2 before the tribunal which is the appellant before this court, filed written statement. It had taken the plea that the driver of the scooter had no valid licence to drive the vehicle on the date of the accident. It was also stated in the written statement that the amount claimed is excessive and exorbitant and fanciful and imaginative. It prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. It may be mentioned here that respondent No. 1 before the tribunal who was also respondent No. 2 in the appeal did not file any written statement. The tribunal framed the following issues: (1) whether the petitioner proves that on 21. 2. 1994 at 7. 30 a. m. On Bangalore road, chintamani town, she sustained injuries in the motor accident? (2) whether the petitioner further proves the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the vehicle? (3) whether the petitioner further proves that the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, from whom and what order?it may be mentioned here that though respondent No. 2 had taken the plea that driver of the scooter had no valid licence, but did not press any issue on that point.

( 3 ) THE tribunal on the material on record held that cumulative effect of all the documents referred to in the judgment read with oral evidence of pws 1 and 3 is to the effect that the petitioner, i. e. , the claimant, namely, present respondent No. 1 before this court has sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the scooter by respondent No. 1 before it. It further found on the basis of the evidence of the doctor that the claimant had suffered abrasion over the lateral aspect of the left elbow and haemarthrosis of left knee with tenderness of lateral condyle of left tibia; x-ray of left knee shows depressed fracture of the lateral condyle of left tibia. According to the medical evidence, injury No. 2 had shown that it was a permanent disablement injury and the petitioner-claimant has minimum limping from pain and having difficulty to sit for toilet, etc. On the basis of the doctor's evidence the tribunal held that the claimant had established that she had sustained permanent disablement due to the accident caused by negligent driving of the scooter driven by respondent No. 1. The tribunal after consideration of the matter, awarded a sum of Rs. 1,13,290 in total as compensation. The details of which are as under:

( 4 ) SIMILARLY appeal No. 1597 of 1998 arises from judgment and award dated 31. 1. 1998 passed by the additional motor accidents claims tribunal (principal civil judge, sr. Divis