Judgment : 1. This appeal has been preferred by the National Insurance Company, Trichy, against the award and decree dated 21.4.1988 in M.C.O.P.N0. 242 of 1986 on the file of the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Judge) Erode, awarding a sum of Rs.1,20,000 as compensation for the death of Sundaram in a motor accident. 2. The deceased Sundaram, the husband of the first petitioner and father of the petitioners 2 to 4 was travelling in a lorry bearing registration No.TDX 5556, after loading tomato baskets. As the lorry proceeded in a fast and negligent manner it hit the tamarind tree on the left-hand side. Sundaram died on the spot. Sundaram was aged 32 only. Hence, the family claimed a compensation of Rs.2,50,000. 3. After considering the evidence, the Tribunal found that there was negligence on the part of the driver and hence the Tribunal awarded the compensation of Rs.1,20,000. 4. In the appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the compensation is excessive, but the counsel for the respondents contended that inasmuch as the appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company alone, the same is not maintainable. The learned counsel for the respondents cited a judgment in support of his contention namely, Narendra Kumar v. Yarenissa, (1997)1 A.C.C. 341 (S.C). In the said judgment, the Apex Court has held in paragraph 5 as follows: “It is a different matter, that claimants normally make the Insurance Company a party to the claim application. That by itself cannot confer a right of appeal on the insurer. The grounds on which the insurer can defend the action commenced against the tort-feasers are limited and unless one or more of those grounds is/are available the Insurance Company is not and cannot be treated as a party to the proceedings. That is the reason why the Courts have consistently taken the view that the Insurance Company has no right to prefer an appeal under Sec.110-D of the Act unless it has been impleaded and allowed to defend on one or more of the grounds set out in sub-Sec.(2) of Sec.96 or in the situation envisaged by Sub-Sec.(2-A) of Sec.110-C of the Act. If then the insurer and the owner of the offending vehicle file a joint appeal and if the Court comes to the conclusion that the insurer had no right to prefer an appeal under Sec.110-D of the Act because -none of the defences mentioned in Sub-Sec.(2) of Sec.96 were available to him nor had a situation of the type envisaged by Sub-Sec.(2-A) of Sec.110-C arisen, it cannot be permitted to file an appeal whether on its own or in association with one or more of the tort-feasers against whom the award is made which the insurer is liable to answer as if a judgment-debtor.” The Apex Court has further held that even if a joint appeal is preferred by the insurer and the owner of the offending vehicle, the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company must be rejected. 5. In view of the categorical pronouncement of the Apex Court, I am in full agreement with the objection raised by the Counsel for the respondents. Hence, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P.Nos.13578 of 1988 and 1172 of 1989 are dismissed.