JUDGMENT 1. - Since both the aforesaid appeals arise out of and pertain to one judgment dated 30th October, 2007 rendered by MACT-cum-Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bharatpur, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material on record. 3. At the very out-set, Shri Vinay Mathur, the learned counsel for the respondent-claimant(s) objected to filing of appeals and contended that the insurer is not permitted to file an appeal questioning the quantum of compensation and negligence of the offending vehicle. Hence, the appeals being not maintainable, deserve to be dismissed. He cited one judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in the case of National Insurance Company Limited, Chandigarh v. Nicolletta Rohtagi and others, reported in 2003 (1) WLC (SC) Civil 129 : AIR 2002 SC 3350 : 2002 ACJ 1950 . 4. The learned counsel for the appellant has albeit opposed the argument of Mr. Vinay Mathur, learned counsel for the respondent-claimant(s), but later-on, fairly conceded that the appeals were not maintainable. 5. In the case of National Insurance Company Ltd., Chandigarh (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "it is not permissible for an insurer to file an appeal questioning the quantum of compensation as well as findings as regards negligence or contributory negligence of the offending vehicle." 6. In the case of Shankarayya and another v. United India Insurance Company Limited and Another, reported in 1998 (3) SCC 140 , the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that "in absence of the existence of the conditions precedent mentioned in Section 170 of Motor Vehicles Act, the insurance company was not entitled to file an appeal on merits questioning the quantum of compensation." 7. The same observation was made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narendra Kumar and another v. Yarenissa and others, reported in 1998 (9) SCC 202 . 8. In the light of the aforesaid pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the instant appeals are also found not to be maintainable and they deserve to be dismissed. 9. In the result, both the aforesaid appeals being not maintainable stand dismissed accordingly. 10. Consequent upon the dismissal of misc. appeals, the stay applications, filed therewith, do not survive and the same also stand disposed of accordingly.Appeals Dismissed. *******