The main legal point established in the judgment is that an insurer cannot challenge the quantum of compensation without obtaining permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT :

Kailash Gambhir, J.

1. The appellant, United India Insurance Company insurer of the offending vehicle has preferred an appeal challenging the impugned order dated 21.11.2007 passed by the learned MACT. The impugned award has arisen out of the claim petition filed by respondent No. 1 against the appellant as well as against respondent Nos. 6 & 7 claiming compensation for the death of Shri Ashok Kumar.

2. The brief facts which are necessary for deciding the present appeal inter-alia are that on 2.2.2006 at about 11.00 A.M., the deceased Shri Ashok Kumar was traveling by TSR bearing No. DL 1R E 2032. When he had reached at Outer Ring Road, Curt Service Road, Vijay Ghat, suddenly the TSR turned upside down due to the rash and negligent driving. As a result thereof, Shri Ashok Kumar fell down on the road along with the TSR and due to which he died.

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 21/11/2007 in the sum of Rs. 13,46,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum payable from the date of the filing of the petition till its realization. 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. The appeal is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage itself as the very maintainability of the appeal is in dispute. The appellant cannot assail the findings of the Tribunal on the quantum of compensation as determined by the Tribunal. The appellant had not taken over the defense of the owner and driver as envisaged u/s 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act and, Therefore, is debarred from challenging the impugned award so as to assail the findings of the Tribunal on the quantum of compensation. Counsel for the appellant vehemently disputes this position and contends that the insurer cannot be rendered remedlyless 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 New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Shanti Pathak and Others, 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 u/s 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Counsel for the appellant also contends that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has already referred the said issue of lack of competence of the insurer to assail the findings of the Tribunal on the ground of quantum of compensation and negligence to a larger Bench and, Therefore, this Court may follow the decision of the Supreme Court in this regard.

6. After having given my thoughtful and conscious consideration to the issue involved in the present case, I am of the view that the issue is no more rest integra as in the judgments cited by the respondent the Hon'ble Supreme Court has authoritatively held that in the absence of permission sought from the Court as envisaged u/s 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the insurer has no right to file an appeal to challenge the quantum of compensation or finding of the Tribunal as regards the negligence or contributory negligence of offending vehicles are concerned. It would be appropriate to refer Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act as under:

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 imp leaded as a party to the proceeding and the insurer so imp leaded shall thereupon have