Hon’ble Amitava Lala, J.—This appeal is made by the insurance company from the judgment and award passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dated 6th December, 2004. The total claim amount was Rs. 17,70,000/- which is arising out of injury. Out of the claim amount, loss of income and disability in total is Rs. 13,80,000/-. The total awarded amount is Rs. 5,92,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum.

2. The appeal has been preferred by the insurance company by saying that the awarded amount is more than the claimed amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- for loss of earning capacity on account of disablement.

3. According to us, such ground is factually incorrect since both the claims, loss of earning capacity and disability, if added, will come to the aforesaid Rs. 13,80,000/- as above.

4. However, the appeal is opposed by the claimants on a different ground. It has been contended by the claimants that appeal is not maintainable in the eye of law since the application of the insurance company under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called as the ‘Act’) had been rejected by the learned Judge of the Tribunal. Therefore, the insurance company has no right to prefer this appeal independently from the ultimate judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

5. The scope and ambit of Section 170 of the Act is as follows :

"170. Impleading insurer in certain cases.—Where in the course of any inquiry, the Claims Tribunal is satisfied that—

(a) there is collusion between the person making the claim and the person against whom the claim is made, or

(b) the person against whom the claim is made has failed to contest the claim,

it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, 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 to the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of Section 149, the right to contest the claim on all or any of the grounds that are available to the person against whom the claim has been made.”

6. Therefore, scope of impleading the insurance company in the claim of the claimants is very much limited unless, of course, it is falling under Section 149 (2) of the Act which is as follows :

“149. Duty of insurers to satisfy judgments and awards against persons insured in respect of third party risks.—(1)..............................

(2) No sum shall be payable by an insurer under sub-section (1) in respect of any judgment or award unless, before the commencement of the proceedings in which the judgment or award is given the insurer had notice through the Court or, as the case may be, the Claims Tribunal of the bringing of the proceedings, or in respect of such judgment or award so long as execution is stayed thereon pending an appeal; and an insurer to whom notice of the bringing of any such proceedings is so given shall be entitled to be made a party thereto and to defend the action on any of the following grounds, namely :

(a) that there has been a breach of a specified condition of the policy, being one of the following conditions, namely :

(i) a condition excluding the use of the vehicle—

(a) for hire or reward, where the vehicle is on the date of the contract of insurance a vehicle not covered by a permit to ply for hire or reward, or

(b) for organised racing and speed testing, or

(c) for a purpose not allowed by the permit under which the vehicle is used, where the vehicle is a transport vehicle, or

(d) without side-car being attached where the vehicle is a motor-cycle; or

(ii) a condition excluding driving by a named person or persons or by any person who is not duly licenced, or by any person who has been disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence during the period of disqualification; or

(iii) a condition excluding liability for injury caused or contributed to by conditions of war, civil war, riot or civil commotion; or

(b) that the policy is void on the ground t