JUDGMENT 1. - Since appellant Insurance Company has preferred these appeals against one order dated Feb. 20, 1999 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, they were heard analogously and are being disposed of by common order. 2. Compensation awarded to the claimant respondents by the learned Tribunal has been called in question in the instant appeals. Two claim petitions in respect of one accident occurred on November 8, 1991 were Instituted by the claimant respondents with the averments that driver of the Truck No. HYG 1575 came at a fast speed and after coming on the wrong side struck with the Car No. RPI 2787 resulted in the death of M.I. Khan, advocate. One Narsing Lal also sustained injuries on account of the said accident. Two claim petitions were filed, one by the legal representatives of late M.I. Khan and another by the injured Narsingh Lal Yadav. The learned Tribunal awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 19,75,000/- to the legal representatives of late M.I. Khan and Rs. 1,02,000/- to injured Narsing Lal Yadav. 3. Preliminary objection was raised by the learned counsel appearing for the claimant respondents. It was canvassed that defence is not available to the appellant insurance company in view of section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the Act). The insurance company can be permitted to contest the proceedings on merits only if the conditions precedent mentioned in section 170 of the Act are found to be satisfied and for that purpose the insurance company has to obtain order in writing from the tribunal. Unless the procedure provided under section 170 of the Act is followed, the insurance company cannot have a wider defence on merits than what is available to it by way of statutory defence. Reliance was placed on Shankarayya and another v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd and another, 1998 ACJ 513 and New India Assurance Co Ltd. v. Narayan Lal and others, S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 336/1998, decided on October 28, 1998 . 4. Controverting the arguments advanced on behalf of the respondents, learned counsel appearing for the appellant urged that the appellant Insurance Company has got every right to assail the findings of the learned Tribunal. It was canvassed that the provisions contained in section 170 of the Act are not applicable. Reliance was placed on Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. 4. Controverting the arguments advanced on behalf of the respondents, learned counsel appearing for the appellant urged that the appellant Insurance Company has got every right to assail the findings of the learned Tribunal. It was canvassed that the provisions contained in section 170 of the Act are not applicable. Reliance was placed on Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. and another v. Rajendra Kaur, 1989 ACJ page 961 , New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and another v. Saraswati Samanta Singhar and others, 1995 ACJ 416 . 5. I have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the material on record as well as the case law cited before me. In the instant appeals the question is whether the appellant insurance company can file the appeal in the High Court against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and get the quantum of compensation reduced when the insured had not filed such appeal and when the appellant Insurance Company had as not moved the Tribunal under Section 170 of the Act for getting the right to contest the proceedings on merits. 6. In Shankarayya and another v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and another (supra) their Lordships of the Supreme Court indicated that without satisfying with the conditions specified in section 170 of the Act, the insurance company was not entitled to file appeal on merits against the claim which was awarded by the Tribunal. In the instant case it is not disputed that the insurance company had not moved the Tribunal under Section 170 of the Act and the insurer had not filed appeal assailing the impugned award. The Division Bench of this Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Swaroop Chandra Jain and others, 1999 Western Law Cases (Raj.) UC 412 propounded that unless the procedure provided under section 170 of the Act is followed, the insurance company cannot have a wider defence on merits than what is available to it by way of statutory defence. 7. A look at the impugned award demonstrates that the insurance company raised certain preliminary objections in the written statement and issue No. 4 was framed in this regard. Undeniably, no documentary or oral evidence was adduced by the insurance company and the impugned award is based on the uncontroverted testimony of the witnesses produced by the claimant respondents. 7. A look at the impugned award demonstrates that the insurance company raised certain preliminary objections in the written statement and issue No. 4 was framed in this regard. Undeniably, no documentary or oral evidence was adduced by the insurance company and the impugned award is based on the uncontroverted testimony of the witnesses produced by the claimant respondents. The case law cited by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Even if I ignore the provisions contained in section 170 of the Act, and appreciate the case on merits then also the appellant insurance company has no case. 8. In Sohan Lal Passi v. P. Sesh Reddy and others, AIR 1996 SC 2627 their Lordships of the Supreme Court propounded thus : "Unless it is established on the material on record that it was the insured who had wilfully violated the condition of the policy by allowing a person not duly licensed to drive the vehicle when the accident took place, the insurer shall be deemed to be a judgment debtor in respect of the liability in view of sub-section (1) of Section 96 of the Act." 9. It was incumbent upon the appellant insurance company to plead and prove that the accident occurred to the knowledge of the insurer. The burden has not been discharged by the appellant insurance company as no evidence was adduced by it. The appeals have no merit, they are accordingly dismissed. No costs.Appeal dismissed. *******