The submissions of the learned counsel for the parties were heard on 18th March 2008. As the Admission Board was very heavy, after concluding the hearing, the Judgment was reserved and the Appeal is kept today for dictation of the Judgment.

2. The Appellant-Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. has taken an exception to the Judgment and Award dated 4th October 1999 passed by the Ex-Officio Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigad-Alibag. The first and Second Respondents are

the original claimants who filed a claim petition invoking section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act of 1988").

3. According to the first and second respondents, the accident occurred on 30th July 1992. According to the case of the first and second Respondents, deceased Ranjit Singh Bhatti was employed as a driver with M/s. Total Carriers P. Ltd. The said employer (Respondent No.3 herein) was the owner of the heavy goods vehicle No.MH-06 7121. At the time of accident, the deceased was driving the said heavy goods vehicle. The case made out by the first and second respondents is that when the deceased was driving the truck on Bombay-Goa national highway within the limits of Sukeli village, the deceased tried to apply brakes but it went off the road and turned turtle. The allegation is that the vehicle was not in a roadworthy condition and the accident was caused as the third Respondent failed to maintain the goods vehicle in a proper condition.

4. As a result of the injuries sustained in the accident, the said Ranjit succumbed to death. The first Respondent is the widow of the deceased. The second Respondent is the minor daughter of the deceased. The forth and fifth Respondents are the parents of the deceased. The present Appellant was impleaded as an opponent to the claim in its capacity as the insurer of the heavy goods vehicle. The third Respondent did not choose to appear before the tribunal. The Appellant filed the written statement. The contention of the Appellant was that the claim ought to have been made under the provisions of Workmen’s Compensation Act,1923. A contention was raised that considering the fact that the age of the deceased was years, under the said Act of 1923, the entitlement was to compensation of Rs.73,768/-. The first and second Respondent lead evidence. However, the Appellant did not adduce any evidence. The tribunal held that the accident was the result of non maintenance of the vehicle in roadworthy condition by the third Respondent. The tribunal proceeded to grant compensation in the sum of Rs.3,35,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of registration of the claim petition till the date of Award. The compensation was made payable not only to the first and second Respondents but also to the fourth and fifth Respondents. In the Award, it was observed that the compensation payable under the no fault liability was not deposited in the court.

5. Initially, when the Appeal appeared before this court on 14th February 2008, the learned counsel for the Respondent raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the Appeal. His contention was that the Appellant had not obtained a leave of the tribunal under section 170 of the said Act of 1988. His submission was that the Appellant has not raised any defence covered by sub-section 2 of section 149 of the said Act of 1988.

6. Though the submissions were heard, thereafter, time was granted to the learned counsel for the Appellant to produce a copy of the order, if any, granting a leave under section 170 of the said Act of 1988 . The Appeal was adjourned on 14th February 2008 to 21st February 2008. Thereafter, the Appeal was adjourned to 29th February 2008. Lastly, the Appeal was placed on board on 11th March 2008 and 18th March 2008. The learned counsel for the Appellant stated that in spite of the best efforts, he could not get instructions in that behalf from the appellant-insurance Company. A Xerox copy of the