Honble JAIN, J. – I propose to dispose of these three appeals together in as much as they arise out of the accident that occurred on 16.7.97 when Budha Ram driver, by rashly and negligently driving tanker No. GQY 4135 owned by Ravindra Singh and insured by appellant, New India Insurance Company Limited, hit jeep No. RJ-19 C2937, which was being driven by Manak Lal. In the above jeep, Manak Lals wife Pushpa Devi and other family members viz., Hem Kanwar and Indra Devi were travelling. As a result of the above accident, Manak Lal, Pushpa, Hem Kanwar and Indra Devi died. Three claim petitions viz., claim petition No. 1/96, 2/96 and 6/96 were filed separately in the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Phalodi. The learned Judge of the Tribunal awarded the interim relief against the owner and the Insurance Company and after trial awarded a sum of Rs. 10,97,000/- in favour of petitioners No. 1 to 3 and Rs. 3,87,000/- to the dependents of Indra Singh in claim No. 6/96. He also awarded simple interest on the aforesaid amount at the rate of 12% from the date of filing the application till realisation. He also detailed the scheme according to which the claim is to be disbursed among the various dependents. (2). It may be stated that the learned Judge framed issues and gave a categorical finding that the above incident occurred on account of rash and negligent dri- ving of tanker No. GQY 4135 by Budha Ram. The Insurance Company has filed all these three misc. appeals challenging the above award. The appellant has challenged the above award on the ground that the learned Tribunal granted exhorbitant compensation in flagrant violation of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court. It was also stated that at the time of driving the above tanker, driver Budha Ram was not having any valid licence. (3). I have heard Shri Jagdish Vyas, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri H.R. Panwar for the respondents. (4). Learned counsel Shri H.R. Panwar challenged the maintainability of these appeals on the ground that under Sec. 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Insurance Company can challenge the award only on the ground enumerated in sub-section (2) of Sec. 149 of the Act. He also submitted that the certificate of the driver was filed before the Tribunal. (4). Learned counsel Shri H.R. Panwar challenged the maintainability of these appeals on the ground that under Sec. 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Insurance Company can challenge the award only on the ground enumerated in sub-section (2) of Sec. 149 of the Act. He also submitted that the certificate of the driver was filed before the Tribunal. It may be stated that learned counsel for the appellant has not raised the ground of licence at the time of arguments. (5). Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that a mere perusal of the impugned award would show that the learned Judge, Tribunal betrayed total ignorance in formulating the principle under which damages is awarded to the dependents of the dead person. (6). I have considered the rival contentions. (7). I have to uphold the objection raised by Shri Panwar that the appellant is precluded from arguing these appeals on the ground of excess quantum of compensation. Sub-section (2) of Sec. 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act specifies the ground on which an insurer may defend the action. Now the insurer is entitled to defend the action on the following grounds : (i) that there has been a breach of one of thespecified conditions of the policy which condition is one of those mentioned in sub- clause (i), (ii) or (iii) of clause (a) and (b); (ii) that the policy is void on account of non-disclosure of a material fact or a false representation of a fact. Thus, the insurer is not entitled to avoid its liability except on the grounds mentioned above. The Division Bench of this Court in New India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Usman and Ors. (1) has held that the Insurance Company cannot be permitted to raise objections to the findings of the Tribunal on negligence and quantum of compensation. (8). For the above reasons, I hold that the appeals filed by the appellant are not maintainable and the same are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.