Judgment 1. This appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act challenging the quantum of compensation being awarded by the 6th Additional District Judgecum-Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Saran, Chapra in Claim (MACT) Case No. 18/92. 2. The accident occurred, vehicles involved, insurance of the vehicle at the relevant time of accident all are admitted. The only challenge is in respect of wrong calculation of the compensation awarded vis-a-vis quantum of it. 3. At the very outset, the Respondents-claimants have challenged the maintainability of the appeal by relying on the recent Judgment of the Apex Court as reported in (2002) 7 S.C.C., 456 [: 2002(4) PLJR (SC) 165] (National Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Nicolletta Rohtagi & others) wherein it has been held by a Bench of three Hon ble Judges of the Apex Court that the Insurance Company has only a limited scope of challenging the claim cases which are confined to those provided under Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act and if no permission is taken on the conditions precedent as embodied under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act on proper grounds available and recorded by the Tribunal, the Insurance Company can not challenge the Claim case on merits including the quantum of compensation and visa-vis the appeals is not maintainable on that score. This Judgment practically confirms the previous three Judgments of Hon ble Judges of the Apex Court as reported in (2000) 4 SCC 130 (Chinnama George V/s. N. K. Raju), (2000) 5 SCC 113 [; 2001(1) PLJR (SC) 30] (Rita Devi V/s. New India Assurance Co.), (1998) 3 SCC 140 (Shankarya V/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.) and the Judgment reported in (2002) 2 SCC, 265 (United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Bhusan Sachdeva) has been over-ruled. In such legal position as constitutionally bound, I have no other alternative but to hold that the present appeal being not maintainable as the quantum has been challenged. 4. But while doing so, I feel that I must also record my expression in the position and circumstances. Ltd. V/s. Bhusan Sachdeva) has been over-ruled. In such legal position as constitutionally bound, I have no other alternative but to hold that the present appeal being not maintainable as the quantum has been challenged. 4. But while doing so, I feel that I must also record my expression in the position and circumstances. In my humble view, perhaps, total bar cannot be there on the Insurance Company which is now a nationalized one being dealt with public money in challenging the quantum on the following principles of law : (i) a person or a body being ordered or subjected to pay a huge amount to the claimants would remain as a silent spectator and having no scope to challenge which does mean denial of natural justice. (ii) generally, when a vehicle is insured then the owner is reluctant to contest the Claim case and it is very often found that the owner files a written statement challenging the Claim case on all points. But at the time of evidence he remains absent. But when the files written statement challenging he Claim case on merit put the Insurance Company in a bewildered position and cannot file a petition as required under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act and in such a position the compensation is awarded practically without challenge and even in many cases quantum is calculated in an arbitrary manner. 5. These are my humble expressions in the position and circumstances and what is being done in practical field and for that reason I have recorded those expressions. But already I have held that as being bound by the decisions of the Apex Court, the present appeal is not maintainable and hence dismissed. But no order as to costs.