Dharmadhikari, J.–1. This appeal is by, the Insurance company against the award dated 5.3.99 of the Claims Tribunal Durg, awarding a sum of Rs. 4,42,000/-, with 12% interest, as compensation for the death of Sanjay Patil who was found to be 28 years of age on the date of motor accident which took place on 19.5.96.

2. On the question of maintainability of the appeal by the Insurance Company on the grounds of quantum and alleged contributory negligence of the other vehicle which collided with the vehicle in which the deceased was travelling, learned counsel sought permission of this Court to address the Court generally on the question as to under what circumstances the' Insurance Company can be allowed to appeal against the award of the Claims Tribunal. Since the question of maintainability of the appeal arose in number of other cases filed by the Insurance Company, such as; M.A. 1143/99,520/99,1139/99, 363/97,913/98 and M.A. 1195/95, this Court allowed all the counsel appearing for tile Insurance Companies in all the above mentioned cases to address this Court on the question of maintainability of the appeal by the insurer alone. We are thansful that on our request Shri Alok Aradhe, Shri Sanjay K. Agarwal, and Shri Kishore Shrivastava, Advocates addressed this Court on the legal question, as amicus curiae.

3. On behalf of the counsel appearing in different cases for the Insurance Company, the contentions mainly advanced are that the insurer should not be denied opportunity of appeal in cases where the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is shockingly excessive and disproportionate to the age and income of the deccased or injured person. It is submitted that there are large number of instances in claim cases where the claimants and insured join hands in the course of proceedings to obtain exorbitant awards against the Insurance Company and in such cases fraud or collusion are discovered only after passing of the award.

4. In one of the cases in which the compensation was awarded on no fault liability under the amended provision of Sec. 163-A with computation provided in Second Schedule of the Act, the contention advanced on behalf of the Insurance Company is that where the provisions of the Schedule indicating the manner of computation of compensation are disregarded, the insurer should have an opportunity of prefering an appeal on the ground that the quantum of compensation determined in a claim under Sec. 163-A is not in accordance with the Second Schedule of the Act.

5. In some of the cases, as in the present one, it is submitted that the accident took place due to collision of the 'Tempo' in which the deceased was travelling with the truck coming from opposite direction. The owner and the driver of the offending truck were not made parties to the claim petition and the entire liability has been fastened on the insurer of the Tempo. It is submitted that in such cases the Insurance Company should be allowed to urge that there was contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the other vehicle i.e. the truck and by impleading the owner, driver and insurer of the Truck finding of contributory negligence should have been reached so that liability proportionate to the extent of negligence on the part of driver of the Truck could have been imposed on the insurer and owner and driver of the truck.

6. Learned counsel appearing in this case submitted that in the policy of Insurance Company, the insurer has reserved a right to take defences for and on behalf of the insured and, therefore, this Court should allow the Insurance Company as insurer of the Vehicle-Tempo to raise grounds of contributory negligence and consequent thereupon to challenge quantum of compensation awarded against the insurer.

7. We have also heard the other counsel appearing for the Insurance Company in the batch of cases mentioned above and the learned Advocates who appeared as amicus curiae.

8. After hearing the counsel and considering several view