D. G. DESHPANDE, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the order of the Tribunal i. e. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raigad at Alibag dated 28-11 -1997 by which compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,40,000/- was awarded to the respondent/claimant.

( 2 ) MR. Hegade, appearing for the respondent/claimant, raised preliminary objection to the maintainability of this appeal. He relied upon the judgment of the supreme Court reported in 2002 A. C. J. 1950 (National Insurance co. Ltd. v. Nicolletta Rohtagi and others ). It is with reference to section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which provides as;

"section 170 : - Impleading insurer in certain cases - Where in the course of any inquiry, the Claims Tribunal is satisfied that - (a) there is collusion between the person making the claim and the person against whom the claim 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 liable in respect of such claim, shall be impleaded as a party to the proceedings and the insurer so impleaded shall thereupon have, without prejudice to the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of section 149, the right to contest the claim on all or any of the grounds that are available to the person against whom the claim has been made. "mr. Hegade therefore contended that when section 170 requires the Tribunal to come to a conclusion that either there is a collusion between the person making the claim and the person against whom the claim is made viz. the owner or the driver of the vehicle or, where such person failed to contest the claim to pass a reasoned order directing impleadment of the insurance company. Here in this case the Tribunal, before the insurance company filed its written statement, had not passed any order either under sub-section (a) or (b) of section 170 and, therefore, now the insurance company had no right of appeal. In the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court this aspect is considered. It is held by the Supreme court in paras 17, 18, 25 and 26 as under :-

"para 17. Before proceeding further, it may be noticed that while 'the Motor vehicles Act, 1939' was in force, section 110-C (2-A) was inserted therein the year 1970 which corresponds to section 170 of the 1988 Act. The said provision provides that in course of an inquiry of a claim if the tribunal is satisfied that there is a collusion between the claimant and the insured or the insured fails to contest the claim, the Tribunal for reasons to be recorded in writing, direct that the insurer who may be liable in respect of such claim, shall be impleaded as a party to the proceedings and the insurer so impleaded shall thereupon have, without prejudice to the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of section 149, the right to contest the claim on all or any of the grounds that are available to the person against whom the claim has been made. "para 18. The aforesaid provisions show two aspects. Firstly, that the insurer has only statutory defences available as provided in sub-section (2) of section 149 of 1988 Act and, secondly, where the Tribunal is of the view that there is a collusion between the claimant and the insured, or the insured does not contest the claim, the insurer can be made a party and on such impleadment the insurer shall have all defences available to it. Then comes the provisions of section 173 which provides for an appeal against the award given by the Tribunal. Under section 173, any person aggrieved by an award is entitled to prefer an appeal to the high Court. Very often the question has arisen as to whether an insurer is entitled to file an appeal on the grounds available to the insured when either there is a collusion between the claimants and the insured or when the insured has not filed an appeal before the High court questioning the quantum of compensation. The consistent view of this Court had been