RAJESH TANDON, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri D. S. Patni Counsel for the appellant and Sri Yogesh Pandey Counsel for the respondent No. 1. ( 2 ) THIS is insurer's appeal against the judgment and award dated 30-11-2006. passed by the Motor Accident Claims tribunal, Champawat awarding a sum of rs. 64, 532/ -. ( 3 ) BRIEFLY stated respondent No. 1 sri Ganesh Bahadur has filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, champawat for grant of compensation on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident on 24-3-2006 near marodkhan involving Truck No. UA 03-1884. The claimant alleged that at the time of accident the vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently. The claimant sustained grievous injuries on his person. ( 4 ) THE opposite parties contested the claim petition and filed their respective written statements and denied the allegations made in the claim petition. ( 5 ) BOTH the parties have adduced the evidence. The Claims Tribunal on the basis of the evidence on record had held that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the truck. So far as the amount of compensation is concerned the claims Tribunal has assessed compensation of Rs. 59,532/- for medical expenses. The claims Tribunal also awarded Rs. 5,000/-for pain and sufferings. Thus the Claims tribunal has awarded a total sum of rs. 64,532/- as compensation. As the vehicle was comprehensively insured with the united India Insurance Co. therefore, the insurance company was held to be liable for payment of compensation. ( 6 ) FEELING aggrieved the present appeal has been filed by the insurance company. ( 7 ) THE appellant insurance company has filed the present appeal on the ground that the compensation awarded is exaggerated. Thus the appeal has been filed challenging the quantum of compensation. However, this defence is not available for the insurance company as no permission under section 170 of the M. V. Act has been obtained, as held by the Apex Court in the case National insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nicolletta Rohtagi, as under:-In Shankarayya v. United India Insurance co. Thus the appeal has been filed challenging the quantum of compensation. However, this defence is not available for the insurance company as no permission under section 170 of the M. V. Act has been obtained, as held by the Apex Court in the case National insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nicolletta Rohtagi, as under:-In Shankarayya v. United India Insurance co. Ltd. , it was held that an insurance company when impleaded as a party by the Court can be permitted to contest the proceedings on merits only if the conditions precedent mentioned in section 170 are found to be satisfied and for that purpose the insurance company has to obtain an order in writing from the Tribunal and which should be a reasoned order by the tribunal. Unless this procedure is followed, the insurance company cannot have a wider defence on merits than what is available to it by way of statutory defences. In absence of the existence of the conditions precedent mentioned in Section 170, the insurance company was not entitled to file an appeal on merits questioning the quantum of compensation. ( 8 ) IN view of the above, a perusal of the record shows that no such permission having been obtained by the Insurance Company. No appeal lies on the quantum of compensation and the only remedy for appeal lies under Section 149 (2) of the Motor vehicles Act. ( 9 ) COUNSEL for the insurance company has also submitted that at the time of accident the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident had no valid driving licence. ( 10 ) IN the present case the driver of the vehicle in question has filed copy of the driving licence and the Claims Tribunal after careful consideration of the said licence has held that the driver of the vehicle had valid driving licence. This issue was framed on the pleadings of the Insurance Company, therefore, burden of proof lies on the insurance company to prove this fact but the insurance Company appellant has utterly failed to prove that the licence of the driver of the vehicle was fake or invalid. ( 11 ) IN the case National Insurance Co. This issue was framed on the pleadings of the Insurance Company, therefore, burden of proof lies on the insurance company to prove this fact but the insurance Company appellant has utterly failed to prove that the licence of the driver of the vehicle was fake or invalid. ( 11 ) IN the case National Insurance Co. Ltd, v. Swaran Singh, the Apex Court has held as under:- (iii) The breach of policy condition e. g. disqualification of the driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in sub-section (2) (a) (ii) of section 149, has to be proved to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards the insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by a duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time. The Apex Court in the case Lal Chand v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. after placing reliance upon the case law enumerated in the case New India Assurance Co. v. Kamla and others; United India Insurance co. Ltd. v. Lehru and others and National insurance Co. Ltd v. Swaran Singh and others (supra) has held as under:-"in the instant case, the owner has not only seen and examined the riving licence produced by the driver but also took the test of the driving of the driver and found that the driver was competent to drive the vehicle and thereafter appointed him as driver of the vehicle in question. Thus, the owner has satisfied himself that the driver has a licence and is driving competently, there would be no breach of Section 149 (2) (a) (ii) and the Insurance Company would not then be absolved of its liability. " ( 12 ) FROM the above observations made by the Apex Court the Insurance, Company appellant cannot avoid his liability for making payment of compensation to the third party. ( 13 ) COUNSEL for the appellant has submitted that the recoverable rights may be given to the insurance company. " ( 12 ) FROM the above observations made by the Apex Court the Insurance, Company appellant cannot avoid his liability for making payment of compensation to the third party. ( 13 ) COUNSEL for the appellant has submitted that the recoverable rights may be given to the insurance company. Since I have already held that the driver of the vehicle in question was having valid driving licence, no such rights are available to the appellant. ( 14 ) IN view of the above, the appeal lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. Amount of compensation deposited in this Court be remitted to the Claims Tribunal forthwith. ( 15 ) NO order as to costs. --- *** ---