Judgment 1. This appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award of compensation in favour of the respondents in Claim Case No. 32/98/69/97. 2. The compensation has been awarded to the tune of Rs. 4,10,000/-. At the very outset, maintainability of the appeal has been challenged as the appeal has been filed against the quantum of compensation alone. Such submissions regarding the maintainability of the appeal has been made on the basis of recent Judgments of the Apex Court. 3. Mr. Priyadarshi, learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the appellants has submitted that it is true that unless permission is being taken under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act the scope of the Insurance Company is limited to the provisions as enumerated under Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. But he wants to make a slight difference to the effect that the challenge is not in respect of the quantum but in respect of the calculation alone and to this effect he has referred to Sushma Thomass case as reported in (2000)1 S.C.C. 9. Even if the calculation is challenged it amounts to challenge of the quantum itself. In that view, Apex Court Judgment remains in vogue. 4. In that way, this Court had alread decided on the point of maintainability the appeal in M. A. No. 76/2002 (Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. V/s. Ram Banshi Ram & ors) disposed of on 1.7.2003 [reported in 2003 (3) PLJR 599 ]. The present appeal is totally covered by the decision given in the aforementioned appeal. In that view of the matter the present appeal is also dismissed as not maintainable. But there will be no order as to costs.