1. A common question of law as to whether it is open to an Insurance Company to challenge the quantum of compensation awar­ded by the Motor Accident claims Tribunal in an appeal filed in the High Court, arises in the three appeals which are under considera­tion by us. The matter was referred to the Full Bench because when one appeal i. e. Civil Misc. First Appeal No. 80 of 1977 came up for disposal before a Division Bench of this court, comprising Mian Jalal-ud-Din, Chief Justice and Mir J, their Lordships were of the opinion that there was some divergence of opinion of this subject in the different High Courts in the country and conse­quently they made the following order of reference on 27th October, 1979.

"The point sought to be raised in this appeal relates to the quantum of compension as awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in favour of the respondents.

A preliminry objection has been raised on behalf of the respondents that it is not open to the appellant to challenge the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The argument is founded on the language employed in Section 96(2) and Section 110(C) and (D) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Mr. Ganjoo has sought to meet this point by enunciating the view that it is open to the insurer to challenge the very quantum of compensation. Section 96(2) read with Section 110(C) and (D) do not operate as a bar to the raising of such a plea in the appeal.

It seems that there is divergence of opinion among the Indian High Courts on the question of law debated before us. A. I. R. 1977 All. 233, A. I. R. 1271 Mysore 207, and A. I. R. 1969 M. P. 190, support the contention of the res­pondent whereas 1979 Motor Accidents Claims Journal 103 (March part) A. I R. 1870. All. 329, have laid down the contrary view. We are given to understand that there is a recent judgment of this court rendered in civil first Misc. Appeal No. 15 of 1978, Mohi-u-Din Versus Ghulam Mohamad Shah and ors, dealing with the point at issue.

In view of the divergence of opinion expressed by the Indian High Courts on this subject and in view of the recent judgment of this court, it would be appropriate to refer the case to the Full Bench.

Accordingly the case is referred to the Full Bench for an authoritative pronouncement. The date and the venue will he communicated to the counsel for the parties."

2. In the other two appeals also, this question was involved and these were also directed to be heard along with C. M. I. A. 80 of 1977.

3. The facts in all the three appeals are some what different and I propose to first deal with the legal question and then deal with each of the three appeals on merits.

4. At the outset, I would like to point out, with due respect to the referring bench, that in all the judgments noticed in the order of reference, there is no divergence of opinion and all the judgments noticed therein lay down the proposition that it is not open to an insurer to question an award of the motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on the question of quantum only except on the grounds contained in Section 96(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. This position is conce­ded by Mr. Ganjoo also but his argument is that section 96(2) of the Act is not exhaustive and that there are no limitations prescribed by Section 110-D of the Act of the nature and character of Section 96(2) of the Act, and therefore, an Insurer has a right to challenge an Award of the Tribunal on all the grounds, including the challenge to the quantum of compensation, in an appeal in the High Court. Before proceeding to examine these submissions, it would be advantageous to notice some of the relevant provisions of the Act.

"Section 96. Duty of insurers to satisfy judgments against persons insured in respect of third party risks.- (1) if, after a certificate of insurance has been issued under sub­section (4) of Section 95 in favour of the person by whom a policy has been effected, judgment in respect of any such liability as is required to be cove