PER GUPTA, J: 1. Motor Accident Claim Tribunal. Jammu awarded an amount of compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,25,000 inclusive of the interim relief already received with 12% interest, under various heads in respect of the injuries sustained by claimant/respondent No. I Gurdeep Singh on his left leg and for which he was operated upon and remained admitted in the hospital and suffered un-bearable pain and agony, in following the ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court in R.D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and others. 1995 ACJ 38. 2. The award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Jammu was however, stood challenged by the National Insurance Company before the learned Single Judge on the following grounds: 1, That Court has mis-appreciated the evidence. The cover note of the Insurance Policy in question in fact was issued on 15-04-1996 and the accident had taken place on 12-04-1996. The award is excessive and the injured had not suffered any wound, injury or head injury. 3, Learned Single Judge after estimating assessing and appreciating the evidence did not find any merit in the contention raised by the appellant Insurance Company and confirmed the award passed by the Tribunal. Appellant, not satisfied with the findings returned by the learned Single Judge in upholding the award passed by Tribunal, impugned its correctness before us in this LPA. 4. It is pertinent to point out that the grounds on which the insurer has challenged the award before the learned Single Judge have been reilerated in this LPA. 5. The first argument put across by the learned counsel for the appellant is that in the absence of the contract of insurance no statutory liability can be fastened on the insurance Company as contemplated under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act to satisfy the award. 6. Adverting to the demur filed by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal, a plea that Insurance cover in respect of the offending vehicle has been obtained by the insured from the agent of the company forcibly, without paying the insurance premium, which became the subject matter of issue before the Tribunal, with its onus of proof on the Insurance Company to discharge. This burden however, remains un-discharged and the plea taken in the objections improved. This burden however, remains un-discharged and the plea taken in the objections improved. It was also found by the Tribunal that there was a tampering of word 9 on the cover note of the offending vehicle, placed on the record. The only witness who could say something to resolve this controversy was Manoj Kumar, the concerned agent, who had issued the cover note, but he has not been produced or examined as witness. Despite the fact that the matter was reported to the Insurance Company by its agent with regard to the Insurance Cover pertaining to the offending vehicle obtained by the insured forcibly without paying the premium no action was taken by the Company nor the matter referred to the police, fully knowing its gravity and magnitude. It was also found prima facie that word "9 appeared to have been tampered with and made ˜0™ without any plausible explanation forth coming from the appellant Insurance Company. On the copy of the cover note, receipt of premium of Rs. 168/- is depicted by Manoj Kumar, agent which remains un-rebutled. If this be the position the plea put across by the appellant Insurance Company that there has a contract without any consideration, cannot be accepted. That apart no endeavour was made by the; Insurance Company to get permission from the court in terms of Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act for contesting the claim on merits, though the insured had been proceeded exparte. So the defence taken by the Insurance Company that the cover note had been obtained forcibly without paying premium, remained unproved for want of evidence. 7. Another leg of arguments advanced by the appellants counsel is with regard to the award made by the Tribunal excessive in on the higher side. The question arises whether this plea is available to the Insurance Company. without obtaining permission from the Tribunal during the course of trial. An identical matter came up for consideration before the Apex Court in Shankarayya Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (1998)3 SCC 140. wherein it has been held that insurer filing an appeal on merits of the compensation claim contending that tthe amount of compensation was on the higher side, the insurer having not moved application under Section 170 was not entitled to challenge the compensation on merits. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (1998)3 SCC 140. wherein it has been held that insurer filing an appeal on merits of the compensation claim contending that tthe amount of compensation was on the higher side, the insurer having not moved application under Section 170 was not entitled to challenge the compensation on merits. It was further held that unless the conditions precedent mentioned in Section 170 are found to be satisfied, the Insurance Company cannot have a wider defence on merits than what is available to it by way of statutory defence, lt must, therefore, be held that on the facts of the case in hand, the appellant Insurance Company is not entitled to lake defence on merits of the claim in appeal viz challenging the award on the point of quantum of compensation. When once it is shown in the Tribunal that premium has been received by the agent the liability of the Insurance Company cannot be denied. Payment and acceptance of the premium by the agent brings into the existence of a contract of insurance between the Insurance Company and the owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company is liable lo indemnity the insured in respect of the compensation paid to the victim of the accident. In view of the above no exception can be taken to the view expressed by the learned Single Judge in dispelling the contention of the appellant on both the counts referred to above and confirming the award made by the Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act. We are clearly of the opinion that there is no merit in this appeal and is accordingly dismissed.