D. Biswas, J.- This appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for short the 'Act' has been preferred against the award dated 12.11.97 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagaon in h MAC Case No. 109 of 1996 whereby a sum of Rs.9,08,981.31 has been ordered to be paid by the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd and the New India As France Company Ltd in equal share. 2. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid award, Sri Kamakhya Das owner of the Bus No. AS 02 5477 and the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd have preferred this appeal challenging the legality and validity of the award as mentioned above. 3. At the very beginning, in view of the joint appeal having been filed by the owner of the bus and the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd, the learned counsel for the appellants has been asked to clarify whether the appeal is maintainable under the provisions of the Act. The learned counsel for the appellants relying on a decision of the Apex Court reported in (1998) 9 SCC 202 (Narendra Kumar & another vs. Yarenissa & others) submitted that the law laid down in paragraph 6 of the aforesaid judgment permitted joint appeal by the owner as well as by the insurance company against an award which in the event of failure of the insurance company may be executed against the owner and, from this point of view, the learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the owner, therefore can be said to be the aggrieved person. 4. After careful scrutiny of the judgment referred to above, we are of the opinion that the Apex Court rendered that judgment on a different context as the award was passed against the owner as well as insurance company and the amount was recoverable from either of the both. The proposition of law enunciated by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment is applicable when the award is jointly and severally executable. Therefore, the law as laid down in the aforesaid case cannot be applied in the instant case as the award here is only against the insurance company. The owner is not liable to discharge the award in any event. 5.
Therefore, the law as laid down in the aforesaid case cannot be applied in the instant case as the award here is only against the insurance company. The owner is not liable to discharge the award in any event. 5. It is now to be considered whether the appeal preferred by the Oriental Insurance Company is maintainable in view of this specific provision incorporated in section 149 (2) of the Act. A reading of sub-section (2) of section 149 would show that the insurance company is entitled to prefer an appeal against an award on certain specific circumstances and not otherwise. The grounds of appeal as have been incorporated in the memo of appeal do not attract any of the permitted grounds. The law is well settled that the insurance company is entitled to challenge an award only on any of those conditions incorporated in the aforesaid section and not otherwise. This appeal by the insurance company is, therefore, not maintainable. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The amount deposited by the appellant No. 2, Oriental Insurance Company be released in favour of the claimant. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.