This is an appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 directed against the judgment and award dated 22.8.2002 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in MAC Claim Case No. 353 of 1999. 2. Heard Mr. Joydeep Nath, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Santa Khaidem, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent. 3. At the outset, there is no dispute that the decision made by this court in MAC (Appeal) No. 2/2004 on 15.6.2005 will cover the facts of the present appeal. 4. The Insurance Company has a very limited grounds of defence in a claim in respect of a motor accident involving a motor vehicle which is insured with the Insurance Company. The said limited grounds of defence are found in Section 149 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The said grounds of defence can be enlarged if permission is taken from the Claims Tribunal under the provisions of Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In the present case, there is nothing to show that the appellant/insurance company took permission under section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act from the Claims Tribunal in writing for enabling it to take the grounds of defence mentioned in the memo of appeal which are more than the limited grounds of defence available to the insurer under section 149 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. 5. Keeping in view the decision of this court made in MAC(Appeal) No. 2/2004 on 15.6.2005 which was made on the basis of the principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in Chinnama George & Ors. v. N.K.Raju & Anr., (2004) 4 SCC 130; Shankarayya and anr. v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr., (1998) 3 SCC 140 and Rita Devi (Smt.) and Ors. v. New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Anr., (2000) 5 SCC 113 , we are of the opinion that the present appeal is not maintainable. In the result, this appeal is dismissed.