JUDGMENT :

Vinay Joshi, J.

Two inconsistent views taken by learned Single Judges of this Court gave rise to this reference to the larger Bench. The controversy in short was - Whether the appeal of insurer in terms of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, is maintainable in absence of permission obtained from the Tribunal as per Section 170[b] of the Motor Vehicles Act ?

2. In case of Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. .vrs. Hanamava Yamanappa Jedi and others, (2014) 4 MhLJ 401, the learned Single Judge of this Court ruled that, in absence of leave under Section 170 [b] of the Motor Vehicles Act, ("the M.V. Act" for short), the appeal of the insurer challenging the award is not maintainable. Whilst another learned Single Judge of this Court in reported case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Goa .vrs. Gulam Mohammad and others, (2016) 6 MhLJ 601, taken a view that such appeal of the insurer is maintainable, without leave being sought from the Tribunal under Section 170 [b] of the M.V. Act.

3. In present appeal, the said inconsistent decisions were cited before the learned Single Judge. Perceiving the controversy, the learned Single Judge has framed following question, and refe