The court's decision emphasized the importance of adhering to the prohibitions and statutory limits outlined in the Motor Vehicles Act when challenging compensation awards in motor accident cases.

1. An Insurance Company which was the 3rd respondent in a petition for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Trivandrum has brought the appeal challenging the decision awarding compensation of Rs. 62,378.24 to the first respondent herein who was the petitioner before the Tribunal. The petitioner was involved in an accident at a place near Kottayam on the National Highway 47 on 27th April 1975 at about 5 p.m., while he was returning to Ernakulam from Trivandrum in his motor car KLR. 7366. The accident was caused by the collision of another car KLQ. 7729 owned by the 1st respondent and was driven by the 2nd respondent in the petition. As a result of the accident the petitioner sustained serious injuries and had to undergo treatment in hospitals at Quilon, Ernakulam and Kolancherry, besides taking Ayurvedic treatment for improving the condition of his leg which was grievously fractured in the accident. He is a lawyer at Ernakulam and had to suspend practice during the period he was undergoing these treatments. The petitioner alleged that the accident was caused by the rashness and negligence with which the 2nd respondent was driving KLQ. 7729. The petition was brought for compensation, general and special, against the owner and driver of KLQ. 7729 and the appellant who was the Insurance Company. All the respondents entered appearance and contested the petition, though the main contesting party appears to have been the appellant before us. They denied that the accident was caused by the rashness or negligence of the 2nd respondent or that the petitioner had suffered damages to the extent claimed by him. They also contended that the petitioner was guilty of contributory negligence and had no right to claim damages.

2. The tribunal overruled these defences. On the question of compensation it awarded general damages of Rs. 40,000 and special damages of Rs. 22,378.24 of which Rs. 5,355.08 constitutes the charges which the petitioner had to incur for repairing his car K.L.R. 7366.

3. The Insurance Company alone has come up in appeal challenging the decision of the Tribunal.

4. At the hearing of the appeal counsel for the petitioner relying upon the recent decision of this Court in United India Fire and General Insurance Company v. Kalyani 1982 KLT. 559 contended that it was not open to the appellant to canvass the merits of the award on account of the prohibitions in S.96(2) and (6) of the Motor Vehicles Act. He also pointed out that there is no case for the appellant that the defences taken by it are those which are specified in S.96(2) or that any right has been reserved for it in the insurance policy to defend the action in the name of the assured. Indeed the appellant has not produced or caused the production of the insurance policy. In the above decision besides discussing the provisions of law we followed the Supreme Court case British India General Insurance Co. v. Itbar Singh AIR. 1959 SC. 1331. We also noted several cases of various High Courts following the Supreme Court decision. In the light of 1982 KLT. 559 the respondents' objection is well-founded and the appellant cannot be allowed to agitate its contentions against the award as they do not fall within S.96(2).

5. Although the decision in 1982 KLT. 559 was concerned with an appeal from a civil suit the same bar must apply to appeals from awards of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals as well. This point was not decided in 1982 KLT. 559 but we noted a few decisions in Para.9 of the judgment and left it open. Counsel for the respondent brought to our notice an earlier bench decision of this Court Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. v. Gopalakrishna Pillai 1978 KLT. 773, which had applied the bar under S.96(2) to an appeal from the decision of a Tribunal. In addition to this decision he also placed before us some decisions of other High Courts taking the same view. As the point is covered by 1978 KLT. 773 we do not think it necessary to quote the