JUDGMENT Hon'ble B.S. Verma, J., -This appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the Act) against the judgment and Award. dated 31-3-2003, passed in M.A.C. Petition No. 80 of 2000, Ran Bahadur Singh Rana Vs. Ramesh Kumar and others. by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge/II E.T.C. Dehradun (for short the Tribunal). whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 1,30,000/along with interest @ 9% per annum against the New India Assurance Company, as mentioned in the impugned order. Aggrieved, the Insurance Company has come up in appeal. 2. Brief facts, giving rise to the present appeal, are that the daughter of the claimant. Km. Beena lost her life in a motor vehicular accident on 11-12-1999 at about 3.30 p.m. involving Maruti Car No. U.P. 07H-8035. According to other claimant. deceased Km. Beena accompanied by Smt. Saraswati Guleria was going in Vikram No. UP 07J-5430. When the Vikram passed through Primary School Lachhiwala. suddenly the offending Maruti Car being driver rashly and negligently, hit the Vikram with result Km. Beena DAD Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Ram 8ahadur Singh Rana [HC) 973 sustained fatal injuries and her companion also received injury. Report of the accident was lodged with P.S. Doiwala and post mortem of the dead body was also conducted. The deceased was alleged to be earning Rs. 5,000/- per month from dairy and poultry farming besides sewing work. Therefore, the claim petition was filed for compensation of Rs. 22,20,000/= before the learned Tribunal. 3. The O.P. No. 1 is the driver of the Vikram in question, O.P. No.2 is the owner thereof, O.P. No.3 is the insurer of the Vikram, O.P. No.4 is the owner-cum-driver of the Maruti car, O.P. no. 5 is the insurer of Maruti car and O.P. No.6 and 7 are wife and minor daughter of the claimant. 4. The Opposite Parties filed separate written statement and contested the claim petition. According to O.P. No.1 the accident took place due to the fault of the driver of the Maruti car, which was being driven rashly and negligently. The income of the deceased was also questioned. It was pleaded that the Vikram was duly insured with O.P. No.3 therefore, liability if any to pay compensation lay upon the insurer. 5. O.P. No.3 resisted the claim petition by filing its WS. refuting the allegations made in the claim petition. The income of the deceased was also questioned. It was pleaded that the Vikram was duly insured with O.P. No.3 therefore, liability if any to pay compensation lay upon the insurer. 5. O.P. No.3 resisted the claim petition by filing its WS. refuting the allegations made in the claim petition. It was pleaded that the driver of the Vikram was not having a driving licence and a valid permit. 6. O.P. No.4 owner of the Maruti car contested the claim petition and filed his written statement alleging that there was no negligence on his part. The Maruti car was duly insured with O.P. no. 5. The O.P. No.5 Oriental Insurance company filed its written statement and pleaded that the claimant is not the legal heir of the deceased Km. Beena and the claimant has no right to file the claim petition. The income of the deceased was denied. It was also denied that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Maruti car. According to O.P. No.5 the claimant is required to prove valid papers including valid driving licence in respect of the Vikram involved in the accident. 7. The learned Tribunal framed following Issues in the cases: 1. Whether the accident in question took place on 11-12-1999 at about 3-30 p.m. opposite Primary Pathshala, Lachhiwala Dehradun due to the rash and negligent driving of Maruti Car NO. U.P.07 H 8035 by O.P. No.4 Dr. Naresh Chandra resulting in the death of Km. Beena ? 2. Whether the O.P. No.3 has wrongly been impleaded as party as alleged in para no. 28 of the written statement? 3. To what amount of compensation, the claimants are entitled to get and from which of the O.Ps.? 8. In support of the claim petition, the claimant filed copies of post mortem report, F.I.R., High School and Intermediate examination mark sheets, photocopy of Rashan card, and certificate issued by the veterinary doctor the claimant examined himself as P.W.-1 and Smt. Saraswati Gularia as P.W-2. On the other hand, the opposite parties examined D.W.l Dr. Naresh Sangal, owner of the Maruti car, besides filing documentary evidence. 9. After considering the evidence on record the learned Tribunal on Issue No.1 came to the conclusion that the motor accident resulting into fatal injuries to Km. On the other hand, the opposite parties examined D.W.l Dr. Naresh Sangal, owner of the Maruti car, besides filing documentary evidence. 9. After considering the evidence on record the learned Tribunal on Issue No.1 came to the conclusion that the motor accident resulting into fatal injuries to Km. Beena was caused due to rash and negligence driving by the driver of Maruti car no. UP 07-H-8035. On Issue No.2 the learned Tribunal held that Km. Beena was travelling by Vikram and that Vikram was duly insured, therefore, the O.P. No.3 was a necessary party. On Issue no. 3 the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 24,000/- per annum and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, annual dependency was computed at Rs. 16,000/-. Since Km. Beena was unmarried therefore considering the age of her parents multiplier of 8 was applied thereby Rs. 1,28,000/was awarded towards loss of income in addition to Rs. 2000/- towards funeral expenses. Accordingly the claim petition was decreed against the O.P. No.5. 10. In support of appeal it was contended on behalf of the insurance company that the finding of the learned Tribunal on the point of rash and negligent driving is erroneous, rather it was a case of composite negligence. Quantum of compensation was also questioned. It was also submitted that the appellant moved an application under section 170 of the Act before the Tribunal, therefore, the appellant can challenged the impugned award on all the grounds available to the owner of the vehicle. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the both the parties and have carefully perused the record. 12. At the outset, it may be noted that the appellant moved an application under Section 170 of the Act (72-C) before the Tribunal for permission to defend the case on all the grounds available to the owner. This application is dated 30-1-2003 but there is no order, passed by the Tribunal in favour of the appellant. Moreover, all the opposite parties including the appellant are arrayed as party and they have contested the case and participated in the proceeding till the conclusion of the case. Neither it is case of collusion between the owner of the vehicle and the claimant nor there is any finding to that effect recorded by the learned Tribunal. 13. Moreover, all the opposite parties including the appellant are arrayed as party and they have contested the case and participated in the proceeding till the conclusion of the case. Neither it is case of collusion between the owner of the vehicle and the claimant nor there is any finding to that effect recorded by the learned Tribunal. 13. It is most significant to mention here that the grounds of challenge available to the insurer-appellant have been enumerated in sub-Section (2) of Section 149 of the Act and no other ground is available to the Insurance Company. No permission under Section 170 of the Act has been sought before and granted by the Tribunal to the appellant to contest the case on the grounds available to the insured or the person against whom claim has been preferred. Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act deals with impleadment of insurer in certain cases. On a careful perusal of the said provisions of law, are not inclined to accept the contentions raised on behalf of the insurer-appellant, because under the Act, the insurer has no right to challenge the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal except on the grounds as enumerated under sub-Section (2) of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The law provides that appeal by the insurer can be filed on limited grounds and the grounds of challenge cannot be enlarged. I am fortified in our view by the Apex Court judgment in the Case of "National Insurance Company Ltd. Chandigarh Vs. Nicolletta Rohtagi and others" [(2002) 7, Supreme Court Cases, 4561. In that case, it has been observed by the Apex Court that "even if no appeal is preferred under Section 173 of 1988 Act by an insure against the award of a Tribunal, it is not permissible for an insurer to file an appeal questioning the quantum of compensation as ill as findings as regard negligence or contributory negligence of the offending vehicle". Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court reported in (2002) 7, S.C.C. 456 (supra), which is fully applicable in the present appeal, none of the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant is tenable and has to be ignored outright. ' 14. Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court reported in (2002) 7, S.C.C. 456 (supra), which is fully applicable in the present appeal, none of the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant is tenable and has to be ignored outright. ' 14. Even otherwise on merit also, I do not find force on the grounds taken by the appellant in this appeal for the reasons detailed below: 15. So far as the rash and negligent driving is concerned, the claimant examined P.W. 2 Smt. Saraswati Guleria who has given ocular account of the accident and has stated that at the relevant time she was accompanying the deceased in the Vikram. According to P.W. 2 the offending Maruti car being driven rashly and negligently by its driver hit the Vikram with force with the result the deceased sustained fatal injuries. The testimony of P.W. 2 coupled with the F.I.R. lodged with the police it is proved on record that the accident in question was the result of the sale negligence on the part of the driver of the Maruti car. The learned Tribunal has rightly answer-ed Issue no. 1 framed on that point. 16. So far as quantum is concerned, the claimant has mentioned that the deceased was engaged in dairy and poultry farming as ill as sewing etc. and getting Rs. 5000/- per month. The record shows that the deceased was intermediate pass. P.W.1 the claimant, has supported the contention regarding income of the deceased. Taking into consideration the facts and the circumstances, the learned Tribunal held that the income of the deceased could not be less than Rs. 2000/- per month. I see no ground to take a different view regarding income of the deceased. The record shows that the parents of the deceased fell in the age group of 55-60 years. The learned Tribunal after considering the age of parents of the deceased applied multiplier of 8 for computing the loss of dependency. As already mentioned earlier, 1/3rd was deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. The Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs. 130,000/- to the claimant which cannot be said to be excessive in any manner. 17. In the result, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 18. The appeal is hereby dismissed. The judgment and award dated 31-3-2003 is affirmed. No order as to costs. 19. The Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs. 130,000/- to the claimant which cannot be said to be excessive in any manner. 17. In the result, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 18. The appeal is hereby dismissed. The judgment and award dated 31-3-2003 is affirmed. No order as to costs. 19. The amount in deposit with this Court be remitted to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal concerned for being paid to the claimant.