An insurance company can challenge an award under Section 96(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act only on limited grounds specified in the provision, and the grounds of appeal must fall within those grounds for the appeal to be maintainable.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the decision and award dated the 27th February, 1969 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Calcutta, 24 par-ganas and Howrah at Howrah presided over by Mr. K. Chatterjee in M. A. C. Case No. 271 of 1965.

( 2 ) ONE Niroj Kumar Ghosh owned a Taxi cab and earned, according to the allegation in the petition, a net income of Rs. 300/- per month. On 7-11-65 at about 7 p. m. when the traffic red signal was on, he was crossing the road at the junction of Dr. Abani Dutt Road and Maulana Abul Kalam Ajad Road, Salkia, Howrah. At that time a Motor lorry No. WBL 8542 fully loaded with sand and driven rashly and negligently, knocked down and ran him over. He was immediately removed to the hospital but ultimately died at about 9 p. m. that very night consequent to the injuries received. The victim was aged 45 years with sound health. His wife Sm. Gitarani filed a claim for self and on behalf of the two minor sons to the rune of Rs. 1,10,000/ -. The deceased left these three persons as the only heirs of his.

( 3 ) BEFORE the Tribunal, the owner of the lorry, Bansilal Roy, the Vanguard Insurance Company Limited of 12-A, Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta and the Premier Insurance Co. , Ltd. of 8, Lyons Range Calcutta were impleaded as the opposite parties.

( 4 ) THE defence of the owner of the lorry was that the income of the deceased was not Rs. 300/- per month. Niroj was not aged 45 years as stated. It has also been alleged that the driver of the lorry was not negligent and rash but it was Niroj who came rashly from the wrong side and dashed against the lorry. The sum and substance of the defence was that the accident was not due to the negligence of the driver but the dachas-ed was in the wrong.

( 5 ) THE defence of the Vanguard Insurance Company Limited was that the lorry was insured with them only for one year upto the 23rd June, 1965. As at the time of the accident the vehicle was not insured with them, they are not liable.

( 6 ) THE allegations made in the objection filed by the Premier Insurance Company Limited, in substance, is that the age and ths income of the deceased are not as stated in the petition for claim. They claimed no knowledge about the accident and supposing there was any, the defence is that it was due to the fault and carelessness of the deceased who had disregarded the traffic signal and the traffic rules, that the accident took place. The driver was not negligent and the claim as made in the petition was excessive.

( 7 ) UPON hearing the parties, the Tribunal held that the driver was negligently and rashly driving his lorry violating the traffic rules and as a result thereof he knocked down Niroj who died of the injuries caused by the lorry. It was also found that the petitioners were entitled to an amount of Rs. 23,500/- as compensation. Out of the said compensation a sum of Rs. 20,000/- is payable by the Premier Insurance Co. , Ltd. while a sum of Rs. 3,500/- is payable by the owner of the lorry.

( 8 ) AGAINST that award the present appeal has been filed jointly by the Premier Insurance Company Limited and Bansilal Roy, the owner of the lorry.

( 9 ) MR. Dutt, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent-claimants took a preliminary point regarding the maintainability of the appeal. His contention is that this appeal is liable to be dismissed in view of the provisions in Section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act. According to Mr. Mitter, the learned advocate for the appellants, when the Premier Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Premier Insurance) was a party, they have, of course, a right to challenge every point in this case.

( 10 ) IN this connection several decisions cited at the Bar may be considered. One such case is the New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Bombay v. Smt. Molia Devi, reported in AIR 1969 Madh Pra 190 which is a Division Bench decision. This was an appeal against the award of the Claims Tribunal. Here it has been h