The court established the principle that the permission granted to the insurance company to contest a claim petition must be valid and supported by recorded reasons, as required by Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Additionally, the court clarified the liability of the insurance company to compensate a pillion rider under the insurance policy.

( 1 ) M. A. Nos. 500 and 583 of 2000 both these appeals arise after a common award dated 28. 4. 2000 passed by Second Additional Member Judge, motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claim Case No. 34 of 1994. Appeal No. 583 of 2000 is preferred by the insurance company for exoneration from payment of compensation while Appeal No. 500 of 2000 is filed by claimant for enhancement of compensation.

( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are that on 10. 5. 1993 the claimant Sudha Jain was sitting as a pillion rider on the scooter driven by her husband, respondent No. 1. The number of the scooter was MBH 1737. At about 9. 30 p. m. they were going to attend a marriage ceremony. When they reached near M. P. Roadways Depot, respondent no. 1 due to excessive speed of the scooter lost his control and the scooter fell down in a ditch near P. W. D. Govt. Bungalow.

( 3 ) THIS accident has resulted in fracture in femur bone in her left leg. Femur bone was completely damaged in the accident. Claimant was taken to hospital where she was treated. She has to undergo a prolonged treatment including 4 surgical operations. A steel rod was inserted in her leg and her leg was shortened by 1. 5". Claimant filed a claim petition. Initially the claim petition was filed for payment of compensation of rs. 2,91,500. However, subsequently the claim petition was amended and valued at rs. 4,91,500. The Claims Tribunal after appreciating the evidence on record has awarded an amount of Rs. 1,20,000 for general damages, Rs. 45,000 for medical expenses and Rs. 23,168 towards pain and suffering. Thus the Claims Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 1,90,000 plus interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum. Claims Tribunal has also awarded interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum in the event the amount is not paid within a period of 2 months from the date of award.

( 4 ) AS regards appeal of the insurance company is concerned the main contention raised by the insurance company is that insurance company is not at all liable for payment of compensation as the husband of the claimant was driving the vehicle. He cannot be compensated for his own wrong. The insurance company has also raised a plea that risk of pillion rider is not covered under the insurance policy. The insurance company has also stated that claim petition is filed in collusion between the claimant and respondent No. 1 who were husband and wife. According to insurance company the accident has not at all taken place. The amount of quantum is also under challenge by the insurance company. The counsel for the claimant has raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the part of the appeal filed by the insurance company challenging the fact of accident and the quantum.

( 5 ) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the claimant the insurance company can confine its appeal only to the extent of defences provided under section 149 (2) of motor Vehicles Act. In reply to the argument counsel for the insurance company urged that insurance company was given permission under section 170 of the Motor vehicles Act to contest the claim petition on the grounds other than the grounds mentioned in section 149 sub-section (2 ). The counsel for the appellant urged that the permission dated 6. 5. 1998 granted by the tribunal is not a permission in the eyes of law. According to the counsel for claimant order sheet dated 6. 5. 1998 recorded by the claims Tribunal shows that the insurance company has not filed any application for seeking permission on the ground of collusion between the claimant and the owner. Moreover, as per section 170 of the Act it is necessary for the court to record its reasons for granting permission.

( 6 ) TO appreciate the argument advanced by the counsel for the petitioner, this court has perused order sheet dated 6. 5. 1998. The order sheet says that Mr. Agrawal, counsel for the insurance company has expressed his desire to contest the claim petition on all the is