JUDGMENT :

Michael Zothankhuma, J.

1. Heard Mr. Lalremtluanga, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Lalchhanliana Khiangte, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. No one appears for the respondent No. 2.

2. Mr. Lalremtluanga, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned Judgment & Award dated 18.05.2017, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aizawl in MACT Case No. 19/2016, directing the appellant/Insurer to pay a sum of Rs. 28,54,000/-, along with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition should be set aside, as there is no proof that the income of the deceased was Rs. 12,000/- per month.

3. Mr. Lalchhanliana Khiangte, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submits that the Income Certificate of the deceased was proved by the claimants. There was no objection to the Income Certificate at the time the said Certificate was exhibited. He submits that the deceased was an Electronic Technician, working in private firm at the time of his death and his pay of Rs. 12,000/- per month was not excessive. He accordingly submits that the Insurance Company has no right to raise any objection about the admissibility of the Income Certificate only at the time of appeal, as no such objection had been raised during the time it was exhibited in the learned Tribunal. He also submits that the Insurance Company not having been given the permission for filing an appeal on all grounds under Section 170 of the MV Act, 1988, the Insurance Company cannot make a challenge to the quantum of compensation given to the claimants.

4. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

5. The records show that no objection was raised by the appellant at the time the Income Certificate of the deceased was exhibited in the learned Tribunal, which is Exhibit-C-21. Further, though written statement was submitted, no evidence was adduced by the appellant Insurance Company before the learned Tribunal. It is also noticed that the respondent No. 2, the owner of the accident vehicle submitted her written statement, but no evidence was adduced by the respondent No. 2.

6. Section 149(2) and Section 170 of the M.V. Act, 1988 states as follows:-

"149(2). No sum shall be payable by an insurer under sub-section (1) in respect of any judgment or award unless, before the commencement of the proceedings in which the judgment or award is given the insurer had notice through the Court or, as the case may be, the Claims Tribunal of the bringing of the proceedings, or in respect of such judgment or award so long as execution is stayed thereon pending an appeal; and an insurer to whom notice of the bringing of any such proceedings is so given shall be entitled to be made a party thereto and to defend the action on any of the following grounds namely:-

(a) That there has been a breach of a specified condition of the policy, being one of the following conditions, namely:-

(I) a condition excluding the use of the vehicle-

(a) for hire or reward, where the vehicle is on the date of the contract of insurance a vehicle not covered by a permit to ply for hire or reward, or

(b) for organized racing and speed testing, or

(c) for a purpose not allowed by the permit under which the vehicle is used, where the vehicle is a transport vehicle, or

(d) without side-car being attached where the vehicle is a motor cycle; or

(ii) a condition excluding driving by a named person or persons or by any person who is not duly licensed, or by any person who has been disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence during the period of disqualification; or

(iii) a condition excluding liability for injury caused or contributed to by conditions of war, civil war, riot or civil commotion; or

(b) that the policy is void on the ground that it was obtained by the non-disclosure of a material fact or by a representation of fact which was false in some material particular.

170. Impleading insurer in certain cases:-Where in the course of any inquiry, th