An insurer can only contest claims under specific grounds laid out in legislation; independent appeals post rejection of related applications are unsustainable.

1. This appeal is made by the insurance company from the judgment and award passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dated 6.12.2004. Total claim amount was Rs. 17,70,000 which is arising out of injury. Out of the claim amount, loss of income and disability in total is Rs. 13,80,000. The total awarded amount is Rs. 5,92,000 with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum.

2. The appeal has been preferred by the insurance company by saying that the awarded amount is more than the claimed amount of Rs. 3,00,000 for loss of earning capacity on account of disablement.

3. According to us, such ground is factually incorrect since both the claims, loss of earning capacity and disability, if added, will come to the aforesaid Rs. 13,80,000 as above.

4. However, the appeal is opposed by the claimants on a different ground. It has been contended by the claimants that the appeal is not maintainable in the eyes of law since the application of the insurance company under S.170 of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988 (hereinafter called as 'the Act') had been rejected by the learned Judge of the Tribunal. Therefore, the insurance company has no right to prefer this appeal independently from the ultimate judgment and award passed by the Claims Tribunal.

5. The scope and ambit of S.170 of the Act is as follows:
“170. Impleading insurer in certain cases. - Where in the course of any inquiry, the Claims Tribunal is satisfied that -
(a) there is collusion between the person making the claim and the person against whom the claim is made, or
(b) the person against whom the claim is made has failed to contest the claim, it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, direct that the insurer who may be liable in respect of such claim, shall be impleaded as a party to the proceeding and the insurer so impleaded shall thereupon have, without prejudice to the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of S.149, the right to contest the claim on all or any of the grounds that are available to the person against whom the claim has been made.”

6. Therefore, scope of impleading the insurance company in the claim of the claimants is very much limited unless, of course, it is falling under S.149 (2) of the Act which is as follows:
“149. Duty of insurers to satisfy judgment and awards against persons in sured in respect of third party risks. -
 xxxx xxxx xxxx
(2) No sum shall be payable by an insurer under sub-section (1) in respect of any judgment or award unless, before the commencement of the proceedings in which the judgment or award is given the insurer had notice through the court or, as the case may be, the Claims Tribunal of the bringing of the proceedings, or in respect of such judgment or award so long as execution is stayed thereon pending an appeal; and an insurer to whom notice of the bringing or any such proceedings 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 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 contract 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; or
(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 disqualif