Honble DR. KOTHARI, J.–Heard learned counsel. (2). This appeal by the New India Assurance Company Ltd. is directed against the Award of MACT, Beawar while deciding claim case No. 10/89 (138/88). (3). Dr. Lalit Kumar Bhutani, an eminent Professor working in All India Institute of Medical Sciences (for short as ``AIIMS), Delhi while on his way from Ranakpur to Delhi in Maruti Car No. DDU 1007 met with an unfortunate accident with Tanker bearing registration No. GRS 5988 being driven in rash and negligent manner by respondent No. 1, driver Narain Singh near Beawar and as a result of said accident on 23.8.87, said Dr.Lalit Kumar Bhutani with his family suffered injuries and the claimant/appellant suffered the following injuries: (i) Vertical split fracture olecranon right ulna with a large lacerated would over back of elbow. (ii) Fracture acetabulum (Comminuted) with posterior dislocation of right hip. (iii) Multiple fractures of Ist, end 3rd, 5th, 6th, 7th & 8th rib left hemithorax. There were double fractures in three of these ribs. There was no Haemopneumothorax. (iv) Fracture of the proximal phalanx of the left ring finger. (v) Multiple abrasions over face and body. (vi) He also had pain and effusion in the left knee. (4). The said claimant was Head of Department of Dermatology and Venereology in AIIMS and was drawing salary of Rs. 5915/- per month at that time. He was an eminent doctor visiting several places for attending conferences and has authored many books on the subject, details of which are available in the documents filed along with claim petition on record. Just prior to his accident, he was also offered an assignment in Saudi Arabia in King Faisal University, Daman, Saudi Arabia for a period of three years. He was offered salary of Saudi Riyal 13,915/- which the Tribunal computed to be equivalent to about Rs. 80,000/- per month. The letter Ex. 19 on record indicates that he was to join the said job by end of August 1987, but unfortunately he met with this accident on 23.8.87 when he came for visiting Ranakpur temple and was going back to Delhi. In the claim petition filed by the claimant before the Tribunal, sum of Rs. 48,23,700/- was claimed before the Tribunal under various headings but the Tribunal in ultimate analysis on the basis of evidence before it awarded sum of Rs. 15,60,000/- in favour of claimant. In the claim petition filed by the claimant before the Tribunal, sum of Rs. 48,23,700/- was claimed before the Tribunal under various headings but the Tribunal in ultimate analysis on the basis of evidence before it awarded sum of Rs. 15,60,000/- in favour of claimant. Out of this, sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- was awarded on account of mental agony, medical treatment etc. while sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- was awarded by Tribunal on account of lost opportunity in the form of employment in Saudi Arabia which the claimant lost on account of said accident. The balance amount of Rs. 60,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal on the ground that son of claimant who was serving in USA had to stay back for attending his father and could not join his job in USA for sometime and claimed US $50,000/-. However the learned Tribunal awarded sum of Rs. 60,000/- on this count. (5). The appellant-Insurance Company has preferred this appeal before this court seeking reduction of this compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the ground that the said award is excessive and without any reasonable basis. (6). Mr. Mathur, learned counsel appearing for the claimants raised a preliminary objection as to maintainability of this appeal at the instance of Insurance Company on the ground that the Insurance Company cannot contest the quantum of compensation on the grounds other than those mentioned in Sec 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Section 149(2) of the Act reads as under: 149(2). Section 149(2) of the Act reads as under: 149(2). No sum shall be payable by an insurer under sub- section (1) in respect of any judgment or award unless, before the commencement of the proceedings in which the judgment of award is given the insurer had notice through the Court or, as the case may be, the Claims Tribunal of the bringing of the proceedings or in respect of such judgment or award so long as execution is stayed thereon pending an appeal; and an insurer to whom notice of the bringing of any such proceedings is so given shall be entitled to be made a party thereto and to defend the action on any of the following grounds, namely:- (a) that there has been a breach of a specified condition of the policy, being one of the following conditions, namely:- (i) a condition excluding the use of the vehicle- (a) for hire or reward, where the vehicle is on the date of the contract of insurance a vehicle not converted by a permit to ply for hire or reward, or (b) for organised racing and speed testing, or (c) for a purpose not allowed by the permit under which the vehicle is used, where the vehicle is a transport vehicle, or (d) without side-car being attached where the vehicle is a motor cycle; or (ii) a condition excluding driving by a named person or persons or by any person who is not duly licensed, or by an person who has been disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence during the period of disqualification; or (iii) a condition excluding liability for injury caused or contributed to by conditions of war, civil war, riot or civil commotion; or (b) that the policy is void on the ground that it was obtained by the non-disclosure of a material fact or by a representation of fact which was false in some material particular. (7). He relies upon the following judgments in support of his submissions (i) Chinnama George and ors. vs. N.K. Raju and Anr. (2000) 4 SC 130), Balbahadur Singh vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. And Ors. (2001) 10 SCC 684 ), National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Challa Bharathamma and Ors. (2004) 8 SCC 517 ), National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh and Ors. (2004) 3 SCC 297 ) and National Insurance Co. Ltd., Chandigarh vs. Nicolletta Rohtagi and Ors. (2000) 4 SC 130), Balbahadur Singh vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. And Ors. (2001) 10 SCC 684 ), National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Challa Bharathamma and Ors. (2004) 8 SCC 517 ), National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh and Ors. (2004) 3 SCC 297 ) and National Insurance Co. Ltd., Chandigarh vs. Nicolletta Rohtagi and Ors. (2002) 7 SCC 456 ). (8). On this preliminary objection, Mr. R.S. Rathore, learned counsel appearing for Insurance Company countered that in view of Sec. 170 of the Act and for which a specific order was passed by the Tribunal on 18.7.94 permitting the Insurance Company u/S. 170 of the Act to contest the claim before the Tribunal, the Insurance Company was entitled to not only maintain this appeal on all grounds including grounds other than those mentioned in Sec. 149(2) of the Act but it can also pray for reduction of compensation. Section 170 of the Act is reproduced as under for ready reference:- ``170. Impleading insurer in certain cases. - Where in the course of any inquiry, the Claims Tribunal is satisfied that- (a) there is collusion between the person making the claim and the person against whom the claim is made, or (b) the person against whom the claim is made has failed to contest the claim, it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, direct that the insurer who may be liable in respect of such claim, shall be impleaded as a party to the proceeding and the insurer so impleaded shall thereupon have, without prejudice to the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of section 149, the right to contest the claim on all or any of the grounds that are available to the person against whom the claim has been made. (9). Mr. Rathore, relies upon the following Judgments in support of his contentions (i) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Jyotsnaben Sudhirbhai Patel and Ors. (2004 RAR 82 (SC)) and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Bhushan Sachdeva and Ors. (2002) 2 SCC 265 ). He further submits that in view of specific permission granted to Insurance Company under Sec. 170 of the Act, the Insurance Company is entitled to raise all those grounds which were available to the owner/driver of the offending vehicle because those persons have failed to contest the claim before the Tribunal. (10). (2002) 2 SCC 265 ). He further submits that in view of specific permission granted to Insurance Company under Sec. 170 of the Act, the Insurance Company is entitled to raise all those grounds which were available to the owner/driver of the offending vehicle because those persons have failed to contest the claim before the Tribunal. (10). Upon perusal of aforesaid Judgments and ratio thereof, it is clear that if the Tribunal allows the Insurance Company to be impleaded and contest the claim under Sec. 170 of the Act, all those grounds to contest the claim which were available to the owner/driver of the vehicle would be equally available to the Insurance Company and right of the Insurance Company to contest the said claim cannot be restricted to those grounds which are mentioned in Sec. 149(2) of the Act. The object of such Sec. 149 of the Act with the heading, ``Duty of insurers to satisfy judgments and awards against persons insured in respect of third party risks appears to be not to whittle down or Seattle the claim awarded by the Tribunal or to allow such claim to be delayed and defeated and the Insurance Companies should be made to satisfy such claims and awards even if subject to their right to recover the same once having paid, from the owner/driver of the offending vehicle. That is why the grounds to contest the claim to be raised by the Insurance Company have been limited in Sec. 149(2) of the Act. This scope of contest is enlarged even for the Insurance Company once they are permitted to contest the claim under Sec. 170 of the Act by a reasoned order of the Tribunal. Sec. 170 of the Act requires such reasons to be recorded in writing by Tribunal. This scope of contest is enlarged even for the Insurance Company once they are permitted to contest the claim under Sec. 170 of the Act by a reasoned order of the Tribunal. Sec. 170 of the Act requires such reasons to be recorded in writing by Tribunal. The Honble Supreme Court in Jyotsnabens case (supra) while unhappily noticing the short and cryptic order of Tribunal of allowing the Insurance Company to contest the claim under Sec. 170 of the Act in the words, ``granted as prayed for still allowed the Insurance Company to maintain its appeal on the grounds other than those contained in Sec. 149(2) of the Act and also held that Insurance Company can be legitimately considered to be `person aggrieved within the meaning of Sec. 173 of the Act wherein provision relation to filing of appeal is made and, therefore, allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment of High Court, matter was remanded back to the High Court. This none the less still requires the Tribunal to record reasons as stipulated in the statute itself before allowing the Insurance Company to contest the claim in the situations obtaining as envisaged in Sec. 170 of the Act. (11). Be that as it may, in the present case also since the Tribunal allowed the Insurance Company to contest the claim under Sec. 170 of the Act, the present appeal cannot be thrown out on the preliminary objection raised by learned counsel appearing for the claimant and the appeal is held maintainable. (12). Coming to the merits of the case, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has relied upon the following two judgments to submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in the present case was excessive i.e. (i) Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay vs. Miss Dolly Thakore (2004(3) TAC 163 (Bom.) and (ii) East India Hotels Ltd. and Anr. vs. Klaus Mittelbachert (deceased) through L.Rs. ( 2002 ACJ 549 ). (13). In the case of Miss Dolly (supra), a T.V. News reader while going in Car Taxi on 17.7.82 at about 12.10 AM in the mid-night, proceeding from Raj Bhawan to Chaupati met with an accident with a BEST undertaking bus coming from Walkeshwar Road, Mumbai and suffered injuries and claim of Rs. 8.0 lac was awarded for the injuries suffered by the said T.V. Artist. 8.0 lac was awarded for the injuries suffered by the said T.V. Artist. The High Court reduced the award of the said Artist who suffered permanent physical disability in the form of (i) Foggy vision in the left eye, (ii) Dropping of left eyelid, (iii) Permanent sensitive scar on the forehead, (iv) Nerve damage to the facial muscle, and (v) Head injuries resulting in severe headache, loss of concentration and loss of memory. The High Court reduced the said compensation from Rs. 8.0 lacs to Rs. 2,50,800/-. (14). In the case of East India Hotels (supra), the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of head injury suffered by a co-pilot of Lufthansa Air-lines who filed the claim against the East India Hotels Ltd. of Rs. 50.00 lacs on account of injuries suffered by him on account of diving into the swimming pool of hotel owned by appellant-company and hitting the bottom of swimming pool and the court ultimately on the concession of appellant-company, allowed the sum of Rs. 86,21,700/- to be paid to the legal representatives of claimant who since died during the course of appeal. (15). Upon perusal of the facts of these two aforesaid cases, it appears that the facts of these cases are distinguishable from the facts of present case. The case of TV news reader or artist who claimed on the basis of assumed future assignment cannot be equated with contract of employment in hand of the present claimant, nor the case of pilot of Lufthansa is comparable with the facts of this case. Though the claimant Dr. Lalit Kumar Bhutani has also been unfortunately expired on 2.7.04 but however the said death cannot be related with the accident in question. However, from the material on record, it appears that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in favour of the claimants cannot be said to be excessive or unreasonable. Under the head of non-pecuniary damages, the Tribunal could very well award the compensation on account of loss of income including the loss of income on the ground of lost opportunities in the form of foreign assignment which in the present case is found to be imminently available to the claimant. For the said assignment of three years, the claimant would have earned tax-free salary income of Rs. For the said assignment of three years, the claimant would have earned tax-free salary income of Rs. 30.00 lacs approximately in three years which he lost salary on account of this accident which took place just prior to his possible flight to Saudi Arabia. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal of Rs. 10.00 lacs on this ground is rather conservative and does not fully equate the loss of such income which the said claimant suffered. However since there is neither any cross objection or cross appeal of claimant for enhancement of such compensation, there is no question of making any enhancement of compensation. But than compensation awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be excessive or unreasonable by any stretch of imagination as is sought to be contested by the appellant- Insurance Company. Similarly the compensation of Rs. 5.00 lacs awarded for pain, mental agony, medical treatment etc. also cannot be said to be excessive. The same was awarded on the basis of evidence produced. Likewise sum of Rs. 60,000/- on account of son of claimant required to stay from joining his job in USA also cannot be said to be unreasonable, therefore, over all compensation of Rs. 15,60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal along with interest @ 12% cannot be said to be excessive or unreasonable. Therefore, quantum of compensation is not required to be interfered with by this court in the present case. (16). The said compensation in view of death of claimant now would be disbursed to the legal representatives of claimant Dr. Lalit Kumar Bhutani who have been sought to be brought on record along with application under O.22 R. 4 CPC filed by the claimant in this court on 29.3.2006 which has been allowed by this Court on 25.4.2006. (17). The entire compensation as awarded by the Tribunal with upto date interest @ 12% per annum shall be paid in three equal portions to Dr. (Mrs.) Manorama Bhutani W/o Dr. Lalit Kumar Bhutani, Nitin Bhutani and Nishit Bhutani sons of late Dr. Lalit Kumar Bhutani. The said amount of compensation shall be paid by account payee cheques in their respective names within a period of three months from today. (18). With these modifications, present appeal of the Insurance Company is dismissed. No order as to costs.