1. On 15.9.2008 at about 6.45 a.m. on NH-52 near Maidamai Gaon, while the deceased was proceeding towards Charaimaria on his bicycle, suddenly the offending vehicle bearing Registration No.AS-07A/4300 (709 Mini Bus) driven by the opposite party No.2 coming from Boginadi side, knocked him down and as a result he sustained grievous injuries and after continuous treatment, he died on 28.9.2008 at the Gauhati Medical College Hospital. The legal heirs of the deceased filed a claim petition on account of Ins death for compensation of Rs. 21,46,160 against the different heads jointly and severally against the opposite parties. In the said claim petition, the driver and owner of the offending vehicle were imploded as opposite party Nos.1 and 2 while the Branch Manager and the Division Manager of the New India Assurance Company Ltd. were impleaded as opposite party Nos.3 and 4. The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 filed a joint written statement. The opposite party Nos.3 and 4 filed a petition on 17.7.2009 under section 170 of the MV Act seeking permission to raise and merit.

2. After hearing the parties, the learned Tribunal rejected the aforesaid petition vide order dated 3.7.2009. Thereafter, on consideration of the evidence and materials on record and after hearing the parties, passed the impugned judgment and order dated 2.9.2009 awarding total compensation of Rs. 14,12,277 with interest @ 9% per annum from the day of filing the claim petition and until payment of the awarded amount by the insurer in the form of bank draft in the Court of the learned Tribunal.

3. I have heard Mr. Bendang Wabang, learned counsel for the appellant-insurer and Mr. T.B. Jamir, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.1 and 2. I have also heard Mr. L. Wabang, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4. None appears for respondent No.3.

4. At the outset, Mr. Jamir, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 raises preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the appeal inasmuch as the appellant's application under section 170 of the MV Act claiming right to rejected by to prefer an contest the claim on all or any of the grounds was the learned Tribunal and the appellant has no right to prefer an appeal questioning the award of compensation except on the grounds enumerated in section 149(2) of the MV Act. In order to bring home these submission, he relies on the following decisions :

(1) National Insurance Co. Ltd., Chandigarh v. Nicolletta Rohtagi and Others, (2002) 7 SCC 456.

(2) R. Mannakatti and Another v. M. Subramaniam and Another, (2005) 11 SCC 389.

(3) New India Assurance v. Sangzuali and Anr., 2000 (3) GLT 248.

5. It is an admitted position that the application filed by the appellant insurer under section 170 of the MV Act, as rejected by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 31.7.2009. While passing the aforesaid order, the teamed Tribunal heavily relied on Rohtagi's case (supra). I have gone through the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court. It has been held, amongst other, that right to appeal is not an inherent or a common law right but is a statutory right and, hence, where the statute limits the right to appeal only to the specified grounds, the appellant cannot file an appeal on any other ground. It has also been held that the application for such permission under section 170 should be bona fide and filed at the state when the insured is required to lead his evidence. The insurer can prefer appeal only on the grounds specified or enumerated under section 149(2) of the MV Act. Para 26 of the aforesaid judgment is illustrative and worth quoting, which reads as follows :

"26. For the aforesaid reasons, an insurer if aggrieved against an award may file an appeal only on those grounds and no other. However, by virtue of section 170 of the 1988 Act, where in course of an enquiry the Claims Tribunal is satisfied that (a) there is a collusion between the person making a claim and the person against whom the claim has been made, or (b) the per

Click Here to Read the rest of this document