JUDGMENT 1. - The above mentioned 8 appeals have been directed against the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur vide judgment dated 11.12.1993. 2. The accident had occurred on 18.3.1985 at about 11.30 p.m. on Jaipur Shahpura road. Poor persons; Santosh, Bheru, Subhan and Madanlal were travelling in Jeep RRH 1752 driven by Immamudeen from Jaipur to Shahpura. Truck MWV 2919 came from opposite direction and there was a collision with the Jeep resulting into the death of all the five occupants of the Jeep including the driver. Five claim cases were filed by the LRs of Santosh, Bheru, Subhan, Immamudeen and Madanlal. It was averred that the accident had occurred because of rash and negligent driving of truck as well as of jeep whereas in one case the claimants came with the version that the cause of accident was only the rash and negligent driving of the truck. In the reply filed by the insurer of the truck viz. Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co. (insurer of the truck) the liability was denied. Similarly, in the reply filed by the New India Assurance Co. (insurer of the Jeep), the liability was denied. In the case filed by the LRs of Subhan, the LRs of the Driver of the jeep pleaded that there was no fault on the part of the driver of the Jeep. All the 5 cases were consolidated. Six issues were framed in all the cases. Claimants examined 13 witnesses. In rebuttal, no evidence was led. 3. The Tribunal held that the accident had occurred because of rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles. It was further found that the truck driver was more responsible for the accident. The liability of the truck driver was fixed at 85%; and the liability for the jeep driver was fixed at 15%. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,50,000 in the claim case filed for the death of Santosh, Rs. 3,00,000 in the claim case filed for the death of Bheru. Rs. 2.10 lakhs in the claim case filed for the death of Subhan, Rs. 7,36,400 in the claim case filed for the death of Miclanlal and Rs. 4,18,200 in the claim case filed for the death of Immamudeen, driver of the jeep. Both the insurers of the accident-ed vehicles - truck and jeep - have preferred these appeals. Rs. 2.10 lakhs in the claim case filed for the death of Subhan, Rs. 7,36,400 in the claim case filed for the death of Miclanlal and Rs. 4,18,200 in the claim case filed for the death of Immamudeen, driver of the jeep. Both the insurers of the accident-ed vehicles - truck and jeep - have preferred these appeals. Since all the matters have arisen out of one and the same award, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 4. The contention of Mr. Tyagi, learned counsel for the New India Assurance Co. appellant, was that by the evidence produced in the case, the fault of the Jeep Driver is not established. He further submitted that the Tribunal has adopted much higher multiplier in all the cases to work out the loss of dependency and as such the amount awarded is excessive. 5. The contention of Mr. Srivastava, learned counsel for the Oriental Insurance Co. appellant, was that the accident had occurred because of the sole negligence of the jeep driver and no award could be passed against his client. He also submitted that the amount awarded is excessive as the Tribunal has adopted much higher multiplier. 6. Mr. Mathur, learned counsel for the claimants respondents, on the other hand, contended that the appeals by these insurance companies are not maintainable as the insurance companies had not applied before the Tribunal under section 110-C (2A), M.V. Act to contest the claim on all the grounds that were available to the insured. He placed reliance on the cases of British Indian General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Captain Itbar Singh & Ors., 1958-65 ACJ 1 , Narendra Kumar and Anr. v. Yarenissa & Anr., 1997 (2) TAC 1 (SC) , National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tulsi Devi, 1988 ACJ 962 & Roop Narain & Anr. v. Avtar Singh & Ors., 1987 ACJ 336 . 7. The first point to be seen is whether the appeals preferred by the two insurance companies are maintainable. The record of the Tribunal does not show that any of the two insurance companies had moved an application before the Tribunal alleging that there was collusion between the claimants and the person against whom the claim was made. 7. The first point to be seen is whether the appeals preferred by the two insurance companies are maintainable. The record of the Tribunal does not show that any of the two insurance companies had moved an application before the Tribunal alleging that there was collusion between the claimants and the person against whom the claim was made. The insurance companies did not make a request before the Tribunal under section 110-0 (2A) that they wanted to defend the cases on all the grounds that were available to the person against whom the claim was preferred. The wordings of sub-sec. (2A) of Section 110-C are clear that it is only when the Tribunal is satisfied that there was collusion between the person making the claim or the person against whom the claim is made had failed to contest then the Tribunal after recording reasons may permit the insurer to contest the claim on any of the grounds. Simply because the insurance companies, were impleaded, it cannot be accepted that the Tribunal had permitted the insurance companies to contest the claim on all the grounds. The Apex Court in the case of Narendra Kumar (supra) observed that the insurance company has no right to prefer an appeal under section 110-D unless it has been impleaded and allowed to defended one or more of the grounds set out in sub-sec. (2) of Section 96 or in the situation envisaged by sub-sec. (2A) of Section 110-C of the Act. 8. By filing replies, the insurance companies could defend the claim cases on the defences available under section 96(2) only In these appeals, the award has not been challenged on the grounds that the Tribunal has not considered the grounds of sub-sec. (2) of Section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act. As a matter of fact, the award has been challenged on merits which could be done only if the insurance companies had obtained the permission of the Tribunal under sub-sec. (2A) of Section 110-C of the Act. In the case of British India General Insurance Co. (supra) it has been clearly observed that sub-sec. (2) of Section 96 bars the insurer to defend the action on grounds not specified in that sub-section. In the case of Roop Narain (supra) the Division Bench-of this Court also held that defences available to the insurer are enumerated in sub-sec. In the case of British India General Insurance Co. (supra) it has been clearly observed that sub-sec. (2) of Section 96 bars the insurer to defend the action on grounds not specified in that sub-section. In the case of Roop Narain (supra) the Division Bench-of this Court also held that defences available to the insurer are enumerated in sub-sec. (2) of Section 96 and the insurance companies cannot raise objection as to the quantum of the compensation awarded. So also in the case of Tulsi Devi (supra) this Court held that the insurance company cannot maintain its appeal unless it sought permission to defend the claim case from the Tribunal under the provisions of sub-sec. (2A) of Section 110-C. In that case, this contention was repelled that if the Tribunal had permitted the insurer to cross-examine the witnesses, by implication permission was granted to the insurer to defend the claim on all the grounds. 9. In the instant case, it is true that the insurer were permitted to cross examine the witnesses, but by that it cannot be presumed that the Tribunal was satisfied to grant permission under sub-sec. (2A) of Section 110-C of the Motor Vehicles Act to defend the claim cases on all the grounds. The law is well settled that if the insurer had not obtained the permission to contest the claim on all the grounds and tribunal did not grant permission under sub-sec. (2A) of Section 110-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, the insurance company cannot maintain appeal against the award challenging the quantum or the finding as to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. 10. Consequently, I hold that all these appeals which have been preferred by the two insurance companies are not maintainable and they are hereby dismissed.Appeal rejected. *******