JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been listed today for vacation of interim ex-parte stay granted by this Court. But instead of hearing this application, the appeal itself has been heard on merits upon joint request of learned counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the Act) has been preferred by the appellant-company against the award dated 16.4.2002 whereby the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Neem Ka Thane passed an award of Rs. 2,87,500/- against the appellant- company as well as the owner and driver of the offending vehicle making them jointly and severally liable. 3. The respondent-claimant No. 1 filed a Claim Petition No. 13/2000 with the averments that on 25.5.2000 Sh. Banwari Lal driver of the Jeep No. RJ-14-3C-1103 came driving the Jeep rashly and negligently and hit the claimant. The claimant got a number of serious injuries. 4. All the three non-claimants were served. The non-claimants No. 1 & 2 respectively driver and owner of the Jeep did not file any reply while the s Insurance Company contested the claim petition by filing reply. 5. Issues were framed. Evidence was recorded and the learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition vide impugned award as stated hereinabove. 6. Vide this appeal the appellant-company has challenged the quantum of punishment (sic. compensation) awarded by the Tribunal on the ground to that the amount of the award is highly excessive. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the claimant-respondent No. 1 contended that this appeal on the quantum is not maintainable as the appellant-company did not even apply for permission to contest the claim petition on merits as provided under Section 170 of the Act. He placed reliance upon Shankarayya and Another v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another, (1998) 3 SCC 140 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the appeal filed on merits on the question of quantum of the compensation is not maintainable if the Insurance Company did not obtain permission from the Tribunal as required under Section 170 of the Act. Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Chinnama George and Others v. N.K. Raju and Another, (2000) 4 SCC 130 : 2000 WLC (SC) Civil 346 . Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Chinnama George and Others v. N.K. Raju and Another, (2000) 4 SCC 130 : 2000 WLC (SC) Civil 346 . Learned counsel for, the appellant-company frankly conceded to this factual aspect that no such application under Section 170 of the Act was filed on behalf of the appellant-company before the Tribunal. 8. In view of the provisions of Section 170 of the Act and the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear that the Insurance Company can be permitted to contest the proceedings on merits only if the conditions precedent mentioned in Section 170 of the Act are found to be satisfied and for that purpose the Insurance Company has to obtain order in writing from the Tribunal and which should be a reasoned order by the Tribunal. Unless that procedure is followed, the insurance Company cannot have a wider defence on merits than what is available to it by way of statutory defence. In the instant case, the appellant-insurance company did not even apply for such a permission as required under Section 170 of the Act, hence, this appeal is not maintainable. Consequently, this appeal along with stay application, being not maintainable is hereby dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******