RAJEEV GUPTA, C. J.

Mr. T. A. Khan, learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. B. P. Nautiyal, learned counsel for respond ent No. 1.

2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is fi nally heard.

3. This is insurers appeal against the award dated 25-02-2005 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/district Judge,. Pauri Garhwal in Motor Acci dent Claim Petition No. 90 of 1999, whereby the Tribunal awarded compen sation of Rs. 3,18,000/- to respondent No. 1 Maan Bahadur.

4. Claimant Maan Bahadur claimed compensation of Rs. 8,04,000/ - for the injuries sustained by him in the accident, which took place on 0/-02-1999 when the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No. UP 07b -1005 met with an accident resulting in seri ous injuries to claimant Maan Bahadur.

5. Appellant Oriential Insurance Company Ltd. contested the claim on several grounds. The Insurance Com pany even disputed the accident itself.

6. The Tribunal, on the evidence led by the parties, held that claimant Maan Bahadur suffered injuries in the accident; the accident took place on ac count of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No. U. P. 07b -1005; and that the offending vehicle was in sured with appellant Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. at the relevant time. Considering the evidence led by the claimant in regard to the injuries suf fered by him in the accident and the amount spent on treatment, the Tribu nal awarded compensation of Rs. 3,18,000/- to the claimant.

7. Appellant Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. is challenging the award on merits.

8. Neither it is mentioned in the memorandum of appeal nor during the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant could demonstrate that the appellant Insurance Company was granted permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act to con test the claim on all available defences.

9. The Apex Court, while consid ering the scope of challenge to the award at the behest of the Insurance Company in the case of National Insur ance Co. Ltd. , Chandigarh Vs. Nicolletta Rohtagi and others reported in (2002) 7 SCC 456, has observed in paras 31 and 32 as follows:

"31. We have already held that un less the conditions precedent speci fied in Section 170 of the 1988 Act are satisfied, an insurance company has no right of appeal to challenge the award on merits. However, in a situation where there is a collusion between the claimants and the in sured or the insured does not con test the claim and, further, the Tri bunal does not implead the insur ance company to contest the claim, in such cases it is open to an insurer to seek permission of the Tribunal to contest the claim on the ground available to the insured or to a per son against whom a cladm has been made. If permission is granted and the insurer is allowed to contest the claim on merits, in that case it is open to the insurer to file an appeal against an award on merits, if ag grieved. In any case where an appli cation for permission is erroneously rejected the insurer can challenge only that part of the order while fil ing appeal on grounds specified in sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the 1988 Act. But such application for permission has to be bona fide and filed at the stage when the insured is required to lead his evidence. So far as obtaining compensation by fraud by the claimant is concerned, it is no longer res Integra that

fraud vitiates the entire proceeding and in such cases it is open to an insurer to apply to the Tribunal for rectification of award.

32. For the aforesaid reasons, our answer to the question is that even if no appeal is preferred under Sec tion 173 of the 1988 Act by an in sured against the award of a Tribu nal, it is not permissible for an in surer to file an appeal questioning the quantum of compensation as well as findings as regards negli gence or contributory negligence of the offending vehicle. "

10. As the appellant Insurance Company was not granted perm

Click Here to Read the rest of this document