D.M. Dharmadhikari, J. -- 1. This appeal has been preferred by the National Insurance Company, Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Insurer') under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Award dated 19.9.1990, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Guna, for short, the 'Tribunal'.

2. The necessary facts, in brief, are that deceased Ahmad Hussain was driver of a new Fiat car, temporary No. MRV 580. The Fiat car was one amongst the convoy of about 50 new Fiat cars going from Bombay for delivery to Gwalior. The Fiat car mentioned above which was driven by deceased Ahmad Hussain, met with an accident as truck No. MBF 944, coming from the opposite direction between Guna and Shivpuri, dashed against the car. The driver of the Fiat car lost his life instantaneously.

3. In the claim petition, filed by the mother, brothers and sister of the deceased, all other parties, namely, M/s. Premier Automobiles, an Automobile dealer at Gwalior where the cars were to be delivered, the truck driver Pappu, the owner of the truck Daljit Singh and the Insurance Company (New India Insurance Company, Ltd.) with which the truck was insured, remained ex parte, he hence, did not contest the claim. It is also not in dispute that the appellant National Insurance Co., Ltd., being the insurer of the Fiat Car involved in the accident, led evidence and cross-examined the witnesses examined on behalf of the claimants on all defences available to the insured, i.e., owner of the truck. The claimants also raised no objection to the defences raised by the appellant Insurer for itself and on behalf of the insured.

4. The Tribunal, by the impugned Award, held truck driver to be solely responsible for the accident and awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,58,000/- as compensation. The appellant Insurer, by this appeal, assails the Award on several grounds. Firstly, it is contended that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased who was driver of the Fiat car and the compensation awarded should have been apportioned half and half between the appellant as insurer of the Fiat car as one party and the insurer and insured of the truck as the second party. The appellant insurer also questioned the quantum of Award determined by the Tribunal. It is contended that the deceased driver had no steady and fixed income. The annual dependency arrived at Rs. 950/- per month with the multiplier of 15 taken in arriving at the figure of compensation is too high when the only dependent of the deceased was his mother Kamarjahan who is advance-aged old lady of 72 years and a minor son, Sabir Ali, aged 8 years.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent claimants raised a preliminary objection that as the appellant insurer was not granted by the Tribunal any permission or direction in its favour for raising all defences on behalf of the insured as contemplated by section 110-C (2-A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, for short, the 'old Act', the Insurer cannot be heard in this appeal on the defences which were available only to the insured. It was pointed out that in the terms of the policy, the insurer had not reserved expressly any right to itself to defend the claim on all pleas and defences available only to the insured.

6. Before considering the contentions advanced by the counsel for the parties on the issues of negligence and quantum, we first propose to decide the preliminary objection raised by the respondents on the maintainability of this appeal. The learned counsel at the Bar brought to our notice three decisions rendered by three different High Courts on the interpretation and the procedural requirement of section 110-C (2-A) of the Old Act. The section reads as under:--

"(2-A) Where in the course of any enquiry, the Claims Tribunal is satisfied that-(i) there is collusion between the person making the claim and the person against whom the claim is made; or (ii) the person against whom the claim is made has failed to contest the clai