JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant-insurer has filed this appeal by joining the owner of the vehicle against the award passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter called "the Tribunal") dated 2-3-2000. The question arises for consideration is as to whether : "Can the insurer joined the owner of the vehicle in filing the joint appeal against the award of the Tribunal ?" 2. Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides the appeals which reads as under:-APPEALS - (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), any person aggrieved by an award of a claims Tribunal may, within ninety days from the date of award, prefer an appeal to the High Court: Provided that no appeal by the person who is required to pay any amount in terms of such award shall be entertained by the High Court unless he has deposited with it twenty-five thousand rupees or fifty per cent of the amount so awarded, whichever is less, in the manner directed by the High Court: Provided further that the High Court may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of ninety days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal in time. (2) No appeal shall lie against any award of a Claims Tribunal, if the amount in dispute in the appeal is less than ten thousand rupees. 3. Thus, from the provision of Section 173 it is clear that the person aggrieved may file the appeal against the award of the Tribunal. The question further arises as to whether the appellant insurer is an aggrieved person? Appellant insurer is a party to claim petition by virtue of provision of Section 149 of the Act. 3. Thus, from the provision of Section 173 it is clear that the person aggrieved may file the appeal against the award of the Tribunal. The question further arises as to whether the appellant insurer is an aggrieved person? Appellant insurer is a party to claim petition by virtue of provision of Section 149 of the Act. Section 149 of the Act reads as under:- "Duty of Insurers to satisfy Judgments and awards against persons Insured in Insured in Respect of third party risks: (1) If, after a certificate of insurance has been issued under sub-section (3) of Section 147 in favour of the person by whom a policy has been effected, judgment or award in respect of any such liability as is required to be covered by a policy under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 147 (being a liability covered by the terms of the policy) [or under the provisions of Section 163-A] is obtained against any person insured by the policy then, notwithstanding that the insurer may be entitled to avoid or cancel or may have avoided or cancelled the policy, the insurer shall, subject to the provisions of this section, pay to the person entitled to the benefit of the decree any sum not exceeding the sum assured payable thereunder, as if he were the judgment debtor, in respect of the liability, together with any amount payable in respect of costs and any sum payable in respect of interest on that sum by virtue of enactment relating to interest on judgments. (2) No sum shall be payable by an insurer under sub-section (1) in respect of any judgment or award unless, before the commencement of the proceedings in which the judgment or award is given the insurer had notice through the Court or, as the case may be, the Claims Tribunal of the bringing of the proceedings, or in respect of such judgment or award so long as execution is stayed thereon pending an appeal; an insurer to whom notice of the bringing of any such proceedings is so given shall be entitled to be made a party thereto and to defend the action on any of the following grounds, namely : (a) that there has been a breach of a specified condition of the policy, being one of the following conditions, namely: (i) a condition excluding the use of the vehicle (a) for hire or reward, where the vehicle is on the date of the contract of insurance a vehicle not covered by a permit to ply for hire or reward or or (b) for organised racing and speed testing, (c) for a purpose not allowed by the permit under which the vehicle is used, where the vehicle is a transport vehicle, or (d) without side-car being attached where the vehicle is a motor cycle; or (ii) a condition excluding driving by a named person or persons or by any person who is not duly licenced, or by any person who has been disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence during the period of disqualification: or (iii) a condition excluding liability for injury caused or contributed to by conditions of war, civil war, riot or civil commotion; or (b) that the policy is void on the ground that it was obtained by the non-disclosure of a material fact or by a representation of fact which was false in some material particular. (3 to 6) xxx xxx xxx (7) No insurer to whom the notice referred to in Sub-section (3) has been given shall be entitled to avoid his liability to any person entitled to the benefit to any such judgment or award as is referred to in sub-section (1) or in such judgment as is referred to in sub-section (3) otherwise than in the manner provided for in sub-section (2) or in the corresponding law of the reciprocating country, as the case may be." 4. Section 149 (2) provides the defences or grounds on which the insurer can defend the claim petition. On perusal of the memo of appeal admittedly, it reveals that none of the grounds as given in sub section (2) of Section 149 of the Act exist and, therefore, the joint appeal filed by the insurer is beyond the scope of sub section (2) of Section 149 of the Act. 5. Undisputed, the appellant insurer has not sought the permission to contest the claim on merits as envisaged under Section 170 of the Act. Section 170 is reproduced : Impending Insurer In Certain Cases Where in the course of any inquiry, the claims Tribunal is satisfied that:- (a) there is collusion between the person making the claim and the person against whom the claim is made, or (b) the person against whom the claim is made has failed to contest the claim, it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, direct that the insurer who may be liable in respect of such claim, shall be imp leaded as a party to the proceeding and the insurer so imp leaded shall thereupon have, without prejudice to the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of Section 149, the right to contest the claim on all or any of the grounds that are available to the person against whom the claim has been made." 6. From this provision, it is clear that Insurance Company on imp leaded as a party, can be permitted to contest the claim on merits only if condition precedent mentioned in Section 170 are satisfied and for that purpose, the appellant insurer has to obtain order in writing from the Tribunal and that too a reasoned order by the Tribunal unless that procedure is followed, the insurer cannot have a wider defence on merits other than the statutory defences as provided under Sub-section (2) of section 149 of the Act. 7. In the instant case, a claim petition was filed by the respondent-claimants Smt. Jasvindra Kaur widow of Late Awatar Singh who died due to motor vehicle accident on 29-6-98, The owner of the vehicle involved in the accident Pyara Singh and the driver Mohan Lal contested the claim before the Tribunal and, therefore, there was no occasion for the insurer to seek permission from the Tribunal as envisaged under Section 170 of the Act for contesting the claim on merit. The vehicle car bearing No. CH 01/D-8997 was validly insured with appellant Insurance Company on the relevant date of accident. According to Section 149 (1), the insurer shall pay to the person entitled for the benefit of the decree any sum not exceeding the sum assured payable therein as he was the judgment debtor, in respect of liability, together with any amount payable in respect of costs and any sum payable in respect of interest on that sum by virtue of any enactment relating to interest on judgments. 8. Thus in the instant case, the appellant insurer is liable to satisfy the judgment impugned as if he is judgment debtor and under these circumstances, the owner of the vehicle cannot be said to be aggrieved person. It is settled law that insurer cannot maintain a joint appeal along with the owner of the vehicle if defence on any of the grounds under Section 149 (2) is not available to it. In that situation, joint appeal by insurer will not be maintainable. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narendra Kumar v. Yarenissa 1998 ACC CJ 244 held that: "For the reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that even in the case of a joint appeal by the insurer and owner of offending vehicle if an award has been made against the tortfeasors as well as the insurer even though an appeal filed by the insurer is not competent, it may not be dismissed as such. The tortfeasor can proceed with the appeal after the cause title is suitably amended by deleting the name of the insurer." 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chinnama George v. N.K. Raju 2000 ACC CJ 777 wherein para 10 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that: "The insurer cannot maintain a joint appeal along with the owner or the driver if defence on any ground under Section 149 (2) is not available to it. In that situation joint appeal will be incompetent. It is not enough if the insurer is struck out from the array of the appellants. The appellate Court must also be satisfied that a defence which is permitted to be taken by the insurer under the Act was taken in the pleadings and was pressed before the Tribunal. In that situation joint appeal will be incompetent. It is not enough if the insurer is struck out from the array of the appellants. The appellate Court must also be satisfied that a defence which is permitted to be taken by the insurer under the Act was taken in the pleadings and was pressed before the Tribunal. On the appellate Court being so satisfied the appeal may be entertained for examination of the correctness or otherwise of the judgment of the Tribunal on the question arising from/relating to such defence taken by the insurer. If the appellant Court is not satisfied that any such question was raised by the insurer in the pleadings and/or was pressed before the Tribunal, the appeal filed by the insurer has to be dismissed as not maintainable. The Court should take care to ascertain this position on proper consideration so that the statutory bar against the insurer in a proceeding of claim of compensation is not rendered irrelevant by the subterfuge of the insurance company joining the insured as a co-appellant in the appeal filed by it. This position is clear on a harmonious reading of the statutory provisions in sections 147, 149 and 173 of the Act. Any other interpretation will defeat the provision of subsection (2) of Section 149 of the Act and throw the legal representatives of the deceased or the injured in the accident to unnecessary prolonged litigation at the instance of the insurer." 11. In the instant case I do not find any argument addressed on behalf of the owner of the vehicle. The only argument which has been addressed by the learned counsel for the insurer on the ground of factum of accident and quantum of compensation. Certainly, these grounds are not available to the, appellant insurer. 12. In view of above discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant insurer National Insurance Company is not maintainable and is dismissed accordingly. 13. However, in the instant case, award has been made against the owner, driver and insurer jointly and severally, therefore, the appeal filed by appellant No. 2 Pyara Singh can be entertained provided he deposits Rs. 25,000/- or fifty percent of the amount so awarded whichever is less within a period of one month from today before the Tribunal as required under the proviso to Section 11 of the Act and after the cause title is suitably amended.Ordered accordingly. 25,000/- or fifty percent of the amount so awarded whichever is less within a period of one month from today before the Tribunal as required under the proviso to Section 11 of the Act and after the cause title is suitably amended.Ordered accordingly. *******