U.L. Bhat, C.J. -- 1. Bhagwandas Rathi sustained fatal injuries in a motor vehicle accident in 1987. His heirs filed a claim application before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal claiming Rs. 18,69,600/- as compensation from the owner and insurer of the vehicle. The owner and the insurer filed separate objections. The Tribunal held that the accident was a result of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle which was insured. The Tribunal passed an award for Rs. 2.5 lacs and directed the insurer to pay the same. The insurer has filed this appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant on the question of maintainability of appeal in the light of section 96 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939, corresponding to section 149 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

3. The provisions of the two Acts are almost identical. Sub-section (1) of section 96 states that if a judgment is obtained against the insurer, the insurer shall, subject to the provisions of section 96, pay to the person entitled to the benefit of the decree, any sum not exceeding the sum assured payable thereunder as also costs and interest, as if he were the judgment-debtor.

4. Sub-section (2) of section 96 reads thus:

"(2) No sum shall be payable by an insurer under sub-section (1) in respect of any judgment unless before or after the commencement of the proceedings in which the judgment is given the insurer had notice through the Court of the bringing of the proceedings, or in respect of any judgment so long as execution is stayed thereon pending an appeal; and an insurer to whom notice of the bringing of any such proceeding 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 the policy was cancelled by mutual consent or by virtue of any provision contained therein before the accident giving rise to the liability, and that either the certificate of insurance was surrendered to the insurer or that the person to whom the certificate was issued has made an affidavit stating that the certificate has been lost or destroyed, or that either before or not later than fourteen days after the happening of the accident the insurer has commenced proceedings for cancellation of the certificate after compliance with the provisions of section 105; or

(b) 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 contact 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;

(ii) a condition excluding driving by a named 'person or persons or by any person who is not duly licensed, 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

(c) that the pllicy is void on the ground that it was obtained by the non-disclosure of a material fact or by a representation of fact which was false in some material particular." (Emphasis supplied)

5. Sub-section (2) bars the insurer from raising any defence to the claim for compensation except in the circumstances permitted by the provisions in clauses (a) to (c). Clauses (a) to (c) provide the grounds which can be raised by the insurer in defending an action. The ground that compensation claimed is excessive is not one permitted by clauses (a) to (b). The clear and unambiguous language of section 96 (2) prevents the insurer from raising any defence not permitted by clauses (a) to (c) ther