( 1 ) THE Oriental Insurance Company is the appellant challenging the award made by the Claims Tribunal awarding a sum of rs. 1,00,000/- towards compensation to the inju red-claimant. ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case necessary to dispose of this appeal may be stated thus: on 4-8-1995 one Dulipudi Sreenivas, working as Assistant Mechanic of Tractors met with an accident while he was returning from Kankatava village on the scooter of the 2nd respondent herein bearing No. AIW 3948 as pillion rider. When the scooter reached near Krishnaveni Convent at Machilipatnam- vijayawada road, the 2nd respondent drove the scooter in a rash and negligent manner and on account of ashe-buffalo coming across the road, the scooter fell down as the 2nd respondent could not control the scooter. As a result, the 1st respondent -claimant sustained injuries and he was immediately shifted to a local doctor and later to Nizams institute of Medical Sciences (NIMS) on 7-8-1995 where his left leg was operated and amputated and the disability suffered by the petitioner was to the extent of 60%. Hence, he laid a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- in M. V. O. P. No. 276 of 1997 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, krishna. ( 3 ) BEFORE the lower Court, the 2nd respondent herein was called absent and was set ex-parte. The appellant-Insurance company examined an employee of the insurance Company as R. W. 1 and Ex. B-1 was got marked. Basing on the evidence available on record and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the lower court awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards compensation as claimed by the claimant. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred by the Insurance company contending that it is not liable to pay the compensation inasmuch as there is no privity of contract between the Insurance company and the injured-claimant, who was a pillion rider on the scooter insured with it. ( 4 ) HEARD thelearned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award. ( 5 ) A perusal of the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 discloses that the accident did occur due to the rash and negligent driving of the 2nd respondent herein. ( 4 ) HEARD thelearned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award. ( 5 ) A perusal of the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 discloses that the accident did occur due to the rash and negligent driving of the 2nd respondent herein. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn my attention to section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and says that the claimant did not furnish any information to the Police as regards the accident, in the absence of which, it cannot be held liable to pay the compensation. I am afraid, I cannot accept this contention inasmuch as non-furnishing of information to the Police by itself does not disentitle the claimant from claiming compensation nor the Insurance Company can escape liability on that ground. Ex. B-1 Policy held by the 2nd respondent covers the third party risk. In the instant case, the respondent-claimant, who was traveling as a pillion rider, definitely can be treated as a third party and thus entitled to claim compensation against the appellant-Insurance Company, with whom the Scooter of the 2nd respondent is insured. The Court below, considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant and also the disability suffered by him to the extent of 60% awarded an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- under the heads both pecuniary and non- pecuniary damages. ( 6 ) COMING to the controversy as regards the entitlement of the Insurance Company to file an appeal questioning the award of the claims Tribunal, the same is resolved by the apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. , chandigarh v. Nicolletta Rohtagi and others confining the grounds on which an appeal can be preferred by the Insurance Company to those provided under Section 149 (2) of the act, however, permitting the insurer to contest the claim where the conditions precedent embodied in Section 170 of the Act are satisfied and in case of adverse award to file an appeal challenging the quantum of compensation or the findings regard negligence of the offending vehicle. ( 7 ) A perusal of the record reveals that no such permission is obtained by the Insurance company from the Tribunal to contest the claim. ( 7 ) A perusal of the record reveals that no such permission is obtained by the Insurance company from the Tribunal to contest the claim. ( 8 ) IN the circumstances of the case and in view of the decision rendered by the Supreme court (supra), I am of the view that there are no merits in this appeal and the same is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs.