JUDGMENT Mishra, J. -- Appellant-Oriental Insurance Company has come up in the present appeal being aggrieved by the award dated 27.4.2000 passed by IInd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sarguja (Ambikapur), awarding the compensation of Rs. 1,10,000/- to the claimants for the death of Ramesh Kumar Agrawal (21). Ramesh Kumar Agrawal met with an accident on 7.3.1988 while he was driving motorcycle No. MP 27-D 1058 owned by respondent No. 3 Pradeep Kumar Agrawal. Vehicle was insured with Oriental Insurance Company. Claimants contended that accident occurred due to the mechanical failure. Owner of the vehicle remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. Appellant-Insurance Company denied the liability to pay the compensation on the ground that the deceased himself was responsible for the alleged accident, therefore, it cannot be made liable for the payment of any compensation. Insurance Company further took a plea that the driver of the vehicle was not having valid driving licence to drive the vehicle and it was the breach of terms and conditions of the policy and to the extent of negligence of the deceased himself, claimants cannot claim any compensation. The Claims Tribunal has passed an award granting compensation of Rs. 1,10,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till realisation. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged in the present appeal that the Claims Tribunal has not given a categorical finding that deceased was driving the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner. However, he submits that in view of the finding of the Claims Tribunal that the vehicle did not have any mechanical failure, it obviously follows that deceased was negligent while driving the vehicle. His further submission is that Claims Tribunal has not given a finding that deceased was not negligent, hence insurer cannot be saddled with the liability to pay the compensation. We are of the opinion that plea advanced by the insurer is within the periphery of negligence. It is not open to the insurer to take such a defence about negligence as that is not a ground of defence under section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, available to the insurer to urge. We are fortified with the view taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Shankarayya and another v. United India Insurance Co. It is not open to the insurer to take such a defence about negligence as that is not a ground of defence under section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, available to the insurer to urge. We are fortified with the view taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Shankarayya and another v. United India Insurance Co. and another, reported in [1998(II) MPWN 78 = (1998) 3 SCC 140 = AIR 1998 SC 2968 ], where the Supreme Court has held as under: "It clearly shows that the Insurance Company when impleaded as a party by the Court can be permitted to contest the proceeding on merits only if the conditions precedent mentioned in the section are found to be satisfied and for that purpose the Insurance Company has to obtain order in writing from the Tribunal and which should be a reasoned order by the Tribunal. Unless that procedure is followed, the Insurance Company cannot have a wider defence on merits than what is available' to it by way of statutory defence. It is true that claimants themselves had joined respondent No. 1 - Insurance Company in the claim petition, but that was done with a view to thrust the statutory liability on the Insurance Company on account of the contract of the insurance. That was not an order of the Court itself permitting the Insurance Company which was impleaded to avail of a larger defence on merits on being satisfied on the aforesaid two conditions mentioned in section 170. Consequently, it must be held that on the facts of the present case, respondent No. 1 Insurance Company was not entitled to file an appeal on merits of the claim which was awarded by the Tribunal. " This decision of the Apex Court has been agreed to in the case of Rita Devi and others v. New India Assurance Co. (AIR SCW 1579) wherein the Supreme Court has held as under: "We respectful1y agree with the ratio laid down in the above case and in view of the fact, admittedly the Insurance Company had not obtained leave from the Tribunal before filing the above appeal. (AIR SCW 1579) wherein the Supreme Court has held as under: "We respectful1y agree with the ratio laid down in the above case and in view of the fact, admittedly the Insurance Company had not obtained leave from the Tribunal before filing the above appeal. We are of the opinion that the appeal filed by the Insurance Company before the High Court was not maintainable." Law to the same effect has been laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Chinnama George and others v. N.K. Raju and another [ (2000) 4 SCC 130 ]. Thus we are of the view that the ground urged in the present appeal on behalf of the insurer is within the periphery of negligence and is not available to be urged by the insurer as it has not taken any permission under section 170 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. Apart from the non-maintainability of the appeal on the ground of negligence, we find that there is uncontroverted plea taken in the claim petition that at the time when the deceased had borrowed the vehicle from the owner, it was having mechanical defect. The insurer has not led any evidence to show that vehicle was not having any mechanical defect. Otherwise also, there is nothing on record to infer that accident took place owing to the negligence of the deceased. The plea of the Insurance Company that the deceased was not having valid driving licence, has also been negatived and the finding has been recorded by the Tribunal that deceased was possessing the driving licence to drive the motorcycle. Quantum of compensation has not been assailed before us, nor it is open for the insurer to assail it in view of the provisions of section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In the result, we find no merit in the present appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. .