An insurance company cannot contest a claim application on merit unless it is specifically permitted under section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

P. K. MISRA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the insurance company under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the award of the Second Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Cuttack, in Misc. Case no. 1285 of 1995, awarding a sum of rs. 8,00,000 as compensation along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of application, i. e. , 22. 12. 95, till payment. The Tribunal gave directions regarding keeping Rs. 7,00,000 in fixed deposit out of the awarded amount.

( 2 ) THE claimants are the widow and two minor children of deceased Purna Chandra sahu. It is stated in the claim application that deceased Purna Chandra Sahu who was an employee under the National Aluminium Company (NALCO) was going on a scooter on Cuttack-Sambalpur National highway. At that time, a bus bearing registration No. OR-04-0045 belonging to the owner (the respondent No. 4) came from behind in high speed and dashed against the scooter as a result of which the deceased fell down on the road and the bus ran over him causing several injuries on the left leg, waist, chest, right hand and head, etc. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, compensation was claimed. It was stated that the present appellant was the insurer in respect of the bus in question.

( 3 ) THE owner did not appear to contest the claim application. However, the insurance company which had been impleaded as a party from the very inception filed written statement denying the allegations made in the claim application.

( 4 ) THE Tribunal on consideration of the evidence on record found that the accident occurred due to negligent driving of the bus driver. It further found that the deceased was an Engineer and was getting monthly salary of Rs. 11,513. Considering rs. 5,000 to be the monthly contribution to the family members and applying the multiplier of 12, the Tribunal calculated that a sum of Rs. 7,20,000 shall be paid on that score. The Tribunal further held that a further consolidated amount of rs. 80,000 should be paid towards loss of consortium, for mental agony et cetera and ultimately directed that a sum of rs. 8,00,000 should be paid. The aforesaid award of the Tribunal is under challenge at the instance of the insurance company. A cross-objection has been filed on behalf of the claimant-respondent Nos. 1 to 3 claiming higher compensation.

( 5 ) IT has been contended on behalf of the insurance company appellant that the deceased himself was driving the scooter without having a driving licence and as such it must be taken that he was negligent and had contributed to the accident. It is further stated that the Tribunal should have framed an issue on this aspect. The appellant also contended that payment of compensation of Rs. 8,00,000 is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case and the amount should be reduced.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the claimants-respondents submitted that since the deceased was aged about 41 years, the Tribunal should have applied the multiplier of 13. Moreover, the Tribunal had not considered about the future prospects of the deceased and monthly contribution to the family should not have been pegged at rs. 5,000. It is, therefore, submitted by him that the compensation amount should be enhanced. The learned counsel for the respondents also challenges about the main-tainability of the appeal at the instance of the insurance company relating to merits of the case, that is to say on the question of negligence and quantum of compensation.

( 7 ) IN the present case, the Claims Tribunal found about the negligence of the bus driver on the basis of the evidence of the PWs. It is contended that PW 2 himself being the driver employed by the deceased was a highly interested witness and his evidence cannot be accepted as reliable. There is no dispute in the fact that the accident was caused involving the scooter and the bus. Even assuming that the evidence of PW 2 is not accepted, still then the doctrine of res ipsa loqui