Appeal against the order of Tribunal awarding compensation dismissed.

P. SATHASIVAM, J.

( 1 ) AGGRIEVED by the award of the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal (Additional District Judge-cum-Chief judicial Magistrate), Pudukkottai in m. C. O. P. No. 181 of 1993, dated 10. 1. 96, the owner and the insurer of the vehicle in question have filed the above appeal questioning the 'negligence' and 'quantum of compensation' arrived at by the Tribunal in respect of death of one Jayaraman in a motor vehicle accident that took place at 6 a. m. , on 26. 6. 1992, the wife, children and parents of the deceased have prayed for a compensation of Rs. 15,00,000. The Tribunal, by the impugned order dated 10. 1. 96 passed an award for Rs. 5,60,000 with interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Questioning the said award, the owner of the Ambassador car No. TN 31-Z 0270 and his insurer, that is, National insurance Co. Ltd. preferred the above appeal. Claimants have preferred Cross-objection no. 10 of 2001 for further sum of Rs. 4,40,000 in addition to the amount already granted.

( 2 ) HEARD the learned counsel for appellants as well as respondents.

( 3 ) EVEN at the outset Mr. K. S. Narasimhan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants fairly states that they are not seriously disputing the finding of the tribunal on the negligence aspect, hence it is unnecessary for us to traverse the facts leading to the negligence aspect. After taking us through the award of the Tribunal as well as the evidence let in, learned counsel appearing for the appellants would state that the compensation of Rs. 5,60,000 awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side and in particular he would submit that the Tribunal committed an error in applying wrong multiplier while determining the compensation.

( 4 ) BEFORE considering the said contention, it is to be noted that the above appeal has been filed by the owner of the vehicle as well as the insurance company. In other words, the insurance company by joining with the owner of the vehicle which was involved in the accident has filed the above appeal questioning the quantum of compensation. In such a circumstance, at the foremost we have to consider: (I) Whether the appeal of the insurance company filed along with the owner of the vehicle questioning the award of the Tribunal without reference to the defences available under section 149 (2)of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is maintainable? (II) Whether in a joint appeal, even after dismissal of the appeal of the insurance company, one of the tortfeasor, viz. , owner of the vehicle can continue the appeal and challenge the award of the tribunal?

( 5 ) EVEN in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, no motor vehicle can be used in a public place without a proper insurance complying with the requirements of Chapter VIII. Section 95 of the said Act refers about requirements of policies and limits of liability. Section 96 speaks about duty of insurers to satisfy judgments against persons insured in respect of third party risks. It is clear that, once the vehicle is insured, it is the duty of the insurer to satisfy all judgments against persons insured in respect of third party risks. However, the insurance company is permitted to take defences provided under sub-clause (2) of section 96. In the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the corresponding provision is section 149. In the 1988 Act also the insurance company is permitted to take defences provided in subsection (2) and avoid its liability. Apart from section 149 (2), it is also relevant to refer section 170. As per section 170, in the course of inquiry, if the Claims Tribunal is satisfied that there is collusion between the person making the claim and person against whom the claim is made or the person against whom the claim is made has failed to contest the claim, direct that the insurer who may be liable in respect of such claim, shall be impleaded as a party to the proceeding and the insurer so impleaded shall thereupon have, without prejudice