Kailash Gambhir, J.

1. The appellant, National Insurance Company Ltd., insurer of the offending vehicle has preferred an appeal challenging the impugned order dated 6.10.2007 passed by the learned MACT. The impugned award has arisen out of the claim petition filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 against the appellant as well as against respondent Nos. 4 & 5 claiming compensation for the death of Shri Gopal Singh Negi.

2. The brief facts which are necessary for deciding the present appeal inter alias are that respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are the legal heirs of deceased Shri Gopal Singh Negi who died on 16.11.2006 on the way to the hospital from the accident spot. On 16.11.2006 at about 9:15 am when the deceased was in the process of boarding a DTC bus bearing registration No. DL 1PB 2499 at Bye-pass bus stand, Outer Ring Road, Burari, Timarpur, when the driver, Sh. Attar Singh, rashly and negligently started the said bus with a sudden jerk and hit another bus bearing registration No. DL 1PB 6874. The deceased Shri Gopal Singh Negi was at the rear gate of the bus and due to the sudden jerk and collision of the aforesaid two buses fell on the road and received fatal injuries. He died on the way to the hospital.

3. The Tribunal after taking into consideration the facts of the case as well as evidence led by the parties had passed an award vide order dated 6.10.2007 in the sum of Rs. 8,51,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum payable from the date of the institution of the petition till the date of realisation. The said order passed by the Tribunal is now under challenge in the present appeal.

4. I have heard learned Counsel for the appellant at considerable length.

5. Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Counsel appearing for the respondent has taken a preliminary objection to the very maintainability of the present appeal on the ground that the appellant cannot assail the findings of the Tribunal on the quantum of compensation as determined by the Tribunal. Counsel contends that the appellant had not taken over the defense of the owner and driver as envisaged under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act and, thereforee, is debarred from challenging the impugned award so as to assail the findings of the Tribunal on the quantum of compensation.

6. The contention of counsel for the respondent is that right to file an appeal is a statutory right and the insurer can assail the findings of the Tribunal only under Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Counsel further contends that it is only in a case where there is collusion between the claimants and the insured, the insurer can assail the findings of the Tribunal on the grounds of quantum as well as negligence subject however to the condition that the insurer had taken permission of the Court to take over the defense of the owner or driver as the case may be as envisaged under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. No such permission was sought by the appellant under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the Tribunal and, thereforee, in the absence of the same, the appellant being the insurer of the offending vehicle cannot maintain the present appeal on grounds other than those available to it under Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

7. Per contra, Ms.Shantha Devi Raman, counsel for the appellant sincerely disputes this position and contends that the insurer cannot be rendered remediless especially in a case where the Tribunal has awarded an excessive amount of compensation in favor of the claimants ignoring all basic principles of law for the award of compensation. Counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 2007 SC 2649 , New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Shanti Pathak and Ors. to contend that the Apex Court had interfered to lower down the compensation amount even in a case where the insurer had not taken any permission from the Court under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Counsel for the appellant als