1. The Insurance Company, the third respondent in O.P.(M.V.) No.774/1981 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam is the appellant.

2. On a perusal of the memorandum of appeal it is clear that the grounds urged therein are grounds which can be availed of only by the insured.

3. The counsel for the claimant therefore argued that the appeal was not maintainable. Dilating on this argument the counsel submitted that the Insurance Company was not entitled to take any defence which is not specified in sub-section (2) of S.96 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, for short, The Act. Before we consider this case of the claimant we shall briefly state the arguments advanced by the counsel for the appellant. The counsel submits that the appeal may be treated as one filed on behalf of the insured and that is possible in view of S.110-C(2A) of Chap.8 of The Act. Had that not been the position there was no need for the Tribunal to allow the appellant to cross-examine the witnesses 'with permission', the counsel submits. He has a further case that in any event, in view of clause (2) of the conditions incorporated in the policy, the appellant has every right to take up the defen