ORDER 1. DELAY CONDONED. 2. LEAVE GRANTED. 3. HEARD PARTIES. 4. AS A RESULT OF AN ACCIDENT THE HUSBAND OF THE FIRST APPELLANT AND FATHER OF THE OTHER APPELLANTS DIED. THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL PASSED AN AWARD FOR A SUM OF RS 8,62,000 WITH INTEREST @ 9% P.A. THE INSURANCE COMPANY FILED AN APPEAL WHICH CAME TO BE DISMISSED BY AN ORDER DATED 23-12-2002 ON THE GROUND THAT AN INSURANCE COMPANY CANNOT MAINTAIN AN APPEAL AGAINST QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION WITHOUT OBTAINING SPECIFIC PERMISSION UNDER SECTION 170 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. AT THIS STAGE IT MUST BE POINTED OUT THAT THE INSURANCE COMPANY HAD ALREADY OBTAINED PERMISSION UNDER SECTION 170 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. EVEN THOUGH THIS WAS WITHIN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE INSURANCE COMPANY THEY DID NOT POINT IT OUT TO THE COURT. 5. THE INSURANCE COMPANY THEN FILED A REVIEW PETITION. THE HIGH COURT 9 ALLOWED THE REVIEW PETITION AND REDUCED THE COMPENSATION TO RS 7,51,847. 6. IN OUR VIEW, THE HIGH COURT ERRED IN NOT NOTICING THAT THERE WAS NO GROUND FOR REVIEW. AT THE TIME THE ORIGINAL ORDER WAS PASSED, THE INSURANCE COMPANY WAS AWARE THAT THEY HAD ALREADY GOT LEAVE UNDER SECTION 170 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. THERE WAS NO REASON FOR NOT POINTING THAT OUT TO THE HIGH COURT WHEN THE ORDER DISMISSING THE APPEAL WAS PASSED. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 1-8-2003 AND RESTORE THE JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT DATED 23-12-2002. IN OTHER WORDS, THE AWARD OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL WILL STAND RESTORED. THE APPEALS STAND DISPOSED OF ACCORDINGLY. NO ORDER AS TO COSTS.