JUDGMENT By the Court.—The present Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order / award dated 18.3.2010 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaunpur in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 132 of 2004 filed by the claimant-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on account of the injuries sustained by the claimant-respondent No. 1(Vinod Kumar) in an accident which took place on 5.11.2003 at about 11.45 a.m. 2. It was, inter alia, averred in the Claim Petition that on 5.11.2003 at about 11.45 a.m., the claimant-respondent No. 1 was going from Baksha to Jaunpur on Jeep bearing Registration No. UTO-4254; and that as soon as the Jeep reached near Kalichabad bypass, the driver of the Jeep suddenly lost control over the Jeep, and driving negligently, he collided with a tree on the right hand-side of the road as a result of which, the right tire of the Jeep burst, and the passengers sitting in the Jeep fell on the ground and the claimant-respondent No. 1 also sustained injuries; and that the claimant-respondent No. 1 was admitted in the District Hospital, Jaunpur; and that considering the serious condition of the claimant-respondent No. 1, he was referred to Alakhnanda Hospital, Varanasi where he was treated for one and a half month; and that as there was no improvement in the condition of the claimant-respondent No. 1, he was referred to the Post Graduate Institute, Lucknow where his Spiral Cord was operated upon but even thereafter the claimant-respondent No. 1 could not get any relief; and that as a result of the injuries sustained by him, his both hands and legs became paralyzed ; and that on account of the injuries sustained by the claimant-respondent No. 1, his teaching work was also stopped. 3. Copy of the Claim Petition has been filed as Annexure-1 to the affidavit accompanying the stay application filed with the Appeal. 4. Sankatha Prasad (respondent No. 3 herein) filed his Written Statement denying the averments made in the Claim Petition. However, it was admitted in the Written Statement that the said Sankatha Prasad (respondent No. 3 herein) was the owner of the vehicle in question, namely the aforesaid Jeep bearing Registration No. UTO-4254. 4. Sankatha Prasad (respondent No. 3 herein) filed his Written Statement denying the averments made in the Claim Petition. However, it was admitted in the Written Statement that the said Sankatha Prasad (respondent No. 3 herein) was the owner of the vehicle in question, namely the aforesaid Jeep bearing Registration No. UTO-4254. It was further stated in the said Written Statement that the vehicle in question was insured with the Appellant-Insurance Company, and the same was being driven by Chandrika Prasad (respondent No. 4 herein), who was having a valid and effective driving licence. It was further stated in the Written Statement that in case, there was any liability for payment of compensation, the same was to be borne by the Appellant-Insurance Company. 5. Copy of the said Written Statement filed on behalf of the said Sankatha Prasad (respondent No. 3 herein) has been filed as Annexure-2 to the affidavit accompanying the stay application filed with the Appeal. 6. The Appellant-Insurance Company also filed its Written Statement denying the averments made in the Claim Petition. The Appellant-Insurance Company in its Written Statement denied the occurrence of the accident. It was further asserted by the Appellant-Insurance Company that the alleged accident took place on account of the right tire of the vehicle in question getting suddenly burst, and, therefore, the liability for payment of compensation was on the owner of the vehicle in question, and not on the Appellant-Insurance Company. It was further denied in the said Written Statement that the vehicle in question was being driven in accordance with the conditions of the Insurance Policy. It was again denied in the said Written Statement that the driver of the vehicle in question was having a valid and effective driving licence on the date of the alleged accident. 7. Copy of the said Written Statement filed on behalf of the Appellant-Insurance Company has been filed as Annexure-3 to the affidavit accompanying the stay application filed with the Appeal. 8. Chandrika Prasad (respondent No. 4 herein) filed his Written Statement denying the averments made in the Claim Petition. It was further stated in the said Written Statement that the said Chandrika Prasad (respondent No. 4 herein) was the driver of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident. 8. Chandrika Prasad (respondent No. 4 herein) filed his Written Statement denying the averments made in the Claim Petition. It was further stated in the said Written Statement that the said Chandrika Prasad (respondent No. 4 herein) was the driver of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident. However, it was asserted by the said Chandrika Prasad (respondent No. 4 herein) that the vehicle in question was not involved in the accident on 5.11.2003; and that in fact, another Jeep bearing Registration No. UTO-4234 was involved in the accident. It was further asserted by the said Chandrika Prasad (respondent No. 4 herein) that he was having valid driving licence at the time of the alleged accident. 9. The Tribunal framed four Issues in the case. 10. Issue No. 1 was regarding factum of the accident having taken place on 5.11.2003 at about 11.45 a.m. on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle in question resulting in serious injuries to Vinod Kumar (claimant-respondent No. 1). 11. The Tribunal decided the said Issue in the affirmative, and held that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle in question. 12. Issue No. 2 was as to whether the driver of the vehicle in question was having valid driving licence at the time of the accident on 5.11.2003. 13. The Tribunal decided the said Issue in the affirmative, and held that the driver of the vehicle in question was having valid driving licence at the time of the accident. 14. Issue No. 3 was as to whether the vehicle in question was insured with the Appellant-Insurance Company at the time of the accident. 15. The Tribunal decided the said Issue in the affirmative, and held that the vehicle in question was insured with the Appellant-Insurance Company at the time of the accident. 16. Issue No. 4 was regarding the relief, if any, to which the claimant-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were entitled. 17. The Tribunal held that Vinod Kumar (claimant-respondent No. 1) was at present suffering from disability to the extent of 90%. The Tribunal accordingly held that Vinod Kumar (claimant-respondent No. 1) was entitled to get compensation amounting to Rs. 18,05,900/- with interest @ 6% per annaum. 18. On the basis of the above findings, the Tribunal gave the impugned Award awarding Rs. The Tribunal accordingly held that Vinod Kumar (claimant-respondent No. 1) was entitled to get compensation amounting to Rs. 18,05,900/- with interest @ 6% per annaum. 18. On the basis of the above findings, the Tribunal gave the impugned Award awarding Rs. 18,05,900/- as compensation to Vinod Kumar (claimant-respondent No. 1) with interest @ 6% per annum. 19. The Appellant-Insurance Company has filed the present Appeal against the said Award. 20. We have heard Shri K.S. Amist, learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company, and perused the record filed with the Appeal. 21. From a perusal of the record, it is evident that an Application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short “the Act”) was filed on behalf of the Appellant-Insurance Company. However, by the order dated 11.2.2009, the Tribunal rejected the said application on the ground that the owner of the vehicle in question (respondent No. 3 herein) was contesting the Claim Petition filed by the claimant-respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 22. Section 170 of the Act lays down as under : “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.” 23. Section 149 of the Act referred to in Section 170 of the said Act is reproduced below : “149. Section 149 of the Act referred to in Section 170 of the said Act is reproduced below : “149. Duty of insurers to satisfy judgments and awards against persons insured in respect of third party risks.—(1) If, after a certificate of insurance has been issued under sub-section (3) of Section 147 in favour of the person by whom a policy has been effected, judgment or award in respect of any such liability as is required to be covered by a policy under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 147 (being a liability covered by the terms of the policy) [or under the provisions of Section 163A] is obtained against any person insured by the policy, then, notwithstanding that the insurer may be entitled to avoid or cancel or may have avoided or cancelled the policy, the insurer shall, subject to the provisions of this Section, pay to the person entitled to the benefit of the decree any sum not exceeding the sum assured payable thereunder, as if he were the judgment debtor, in respect of the liability, together with any amount payable in respect of costs and any sum payable in respect of interest on that sum by virtue of any enactment relating to interest on judgments. (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 or 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 covered 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 any 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 nondisclosure of a material fact or by a representation of fact which was false in some material particular. (3) Where any such judgment as is referred to in sub-section (1) is obtained from a Court in a reciprocating country and in the case of a foreign judgment is, by virtue of the provisions of Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) conclusive as to any matter adjudicated upon by it, the insurer (being an insurer registered under the Insurance Act, 1938 (4 of 1938) and whether or not he is registered under the corresponding law of the reciprocating country) shall be liable to the person entitled to the benefit of the decree in the manner and to the extent specified in sub-section (1), as if the judgment were given by a Court in India: Provided that no sum shall be payable by the insurer in respect of any such judgment unless, before the commencement of the proceedings in which the judgment is given, the insurer had notice through the Court concerned of the bringing of the proceedings and the insurer to whom notice is so given is entitled under the corresponding law of the reciprocating country, to be made a party to the proceedings and to defend the action on grounds similar to those specified in sub-section (2). (4) Where a certificate of insurance has been issued under sub-section (3) of Section 147 to the person by whom a policy has been effected, so much of the policy as purports to restrict the insurance of the persons insured thereby by reference to any condition other than those in clause (b) of sub-section (2) shall, as respects such liabilities as are required to be covered by a policy under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 147, be of no effect: Provided that any sum paid by the insurer in or towards the discharge of any liability of any person which is covered by the policy by virtue only of this sub-section shall be recoverable by the insurer from that person. (5) If the amount which an insurer becomes liable under this Section to pay in respect of a liability incurred by a person insured by a policy exceeds the amount for which the insurer would apart from the provisions of this Section be liable under the policy in respect of that liability, the insurer shall be entitled to recover the excess from that person. (6) In this Section the expression “material fact” and “material particular” means, respectively a fact or particular of such a nature as to influence the judgment of a prudent insurer in determining whether he will take the risk and, if so, at what premium and on what conditions, and the expression “liability covered by the terms of the policy” means a liability which is covered by the policy or which would be so covered but for the fact that the insurer is entitled to avoid or cancel or has avoided or cancelled the policy. (7) No insurer to whom the notice referred to in sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) has been given shall be entitled to avoid his liability to any person entitled to the benefit of any such judgment or award as is referred to in sub-section (1) or in such judgment as is referred to in sub-section (3) otherwise than in the manner provided for in sub-section (2) or in the corresponding law of the reciprocating country, as the case may be. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, “Claims Tribunal” means a Claims Tribunal constituted under Section 165 and “award” means an award made by that Tribunal under Section 168.” 23-A. Reading Sections 170 and 149(2) of the Act together, it is evident that in case the Tribunal grants permission to the insurer under Section 170, the insurer will get right to contest the Claim Petition on all or any of the grounds that are available to the person against whom the claim has been made. However, if such permission is not granted by the Tribunal, then the insurer will be entitled to contest the Claim Petition on the limited grounds mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the Act. It follows, therefore, that in case an appeal is filed by the insurer against an award in a case where its application under Section 170 of the Act was rejected by the Tribunal, it (insurer) will be able to challenge the award only on the limited grounds mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the said Act. 24. The first question to be considered is as to whether the Tribunal was right in passing the order dated 11.2.2009 rejecting the said application under Section 170 of the Act filed on behalf of the Appellant-Insurance Company. 25. 24. The first question to be considered is as to whether the Tribunal was right in passing the order dated 11.2.2009 rejecting the said application under Section 170 of the Act filed on behalf of the Appellant-Insurance Company. 25. Section 170 of the Act contemplates the following two situations where the insurer may be given, 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: (a) where there is collusion between the person making the claim and the person against whom the claim is made, or (b) where the person against whom the claim is made has failed to contest the claim. 26. In the present case, no collusion has been shown between the claimant-respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and the owner of the vehicle in question namely, Sankatha Prasad (respondent No. 3 herein). Therefore, situation (a), mentioned above, has not been shown to exist in the present case. 27. As is evident from the record filed with the Appeal, the said Sankatha Prasad (respondent No. 3 herein) filed his Written Statement denying the averments made in the Claim Petition. Further, Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, clerk in the Office of the A.R.T.O., Jaunpur was examined as D.W.-1 and Chandrika Prasad, driver of the vehicle in question, was examined as D.W.-2 on behalf of the opposite parties in the Claim Petition. Further, driving licence of the said Chandrika Prasad as well as the particulars of the driving licence, Insurance Cover Note in respect of the vehicle in question, Registration Certificate, Fitness Certificate and Permit in respect of the vehicle in question, were brought on record on behalf of the opposite parties in the Claim Petition. The witnesses examined on behalf of the claimant-respondent Nos. 1 and 2, namely, P.W.-1, Nisha Singh, P.W.-2, Sandeep Kumar Singh and P.W.-3, Vinod Kumar, were cross-examined by the learned counsel for the said Sankatha Prasad (respondent No. 3 herein). 28. It is, thus, evident that the owner of the vehicle in question (respondent No. 3 herein) against whom the claim was made was contesting the Claim Petition. Therefore, situation (b), mentioned above, also does not exist in the present case. 29. 28. It is, thus, evident that the owner of the vehicle in question (respondent No. 3 herein) against whom the claim was made was contesting the Claim Petition. Therefore, situation (b), mentioned above, also does not exist in the present case. 29. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the application under Section 170 of the Act, filed on behalf of the Appellant-Insurance Company, was rightly rejected by the order dated 11.2.2009. 30. The next question to be considered is as to on what grounds, the Appellant-Insurance Company can challenge the impugned Award, and as to whether such challenge is valid. 31. As noted above, in the present case, the Tribunal rejected the application of the Appellant-Insurance Company for permission under Section 170 of the Act. 32. In view of the rejection of the said application under Section 170 of the Act, it is evident that the Appellant-Insurance Company can challenge the impugned Award only on the grounds mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the Act. Such grounds are evidently in respect of Issue Nos. 2 and 3. 33. As noted above, in regard to Issue No. 2, the Tribunal has recorded finding of fact that at the time of the accident, the Driver of the vehicle in question was having valid Driving Licence. 34. As regards Issue No. 3, the Tribunal has recorded finding of fact that at the time of the accident, the vehicle in question was insured with the Appellant-Insurance Company. 35. Shri K.S. Amist, learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company has not been able to show any error or infirmity or illegality in the aforesaid findings recorded by the Tribunal on Issue Nos. 2 and 3. 36. Having perused the record filed with the Appeal, we are of the opinion that the findings recorded by the Tribunal on the aforesaid Issues were correct, and the same do not suffer from any error or infirmity or illegality. 37. Therefore, we are of the view that the Appellant-Insurance Company has failed to establish any error or infirmity or illegality in the impugned Award on the grounds open to the Appellant-Insurance Company to raise in view of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the Act. 38. 37. Therefore, we are of the view that the Appellant-Insurance Company has failed to establish any error or infirmity or illegality in the impugned Award on the grounds open to the Appellant-Insurance Company to raise in view of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the Act. 38. Shri K.S. Amist, learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company, however, submits that the liability of the Appellant-Insurance Company to pay compensation is dependent on the question as to whether the alleged accident in fact occurred or not. In case, the submission proceeds, no accident in fact occurred, there would be no liability on the part of the Appellant-Insurance Company to pay any compensation. Therefore, he submits, it is open to the Appellant-Insurance Company to challenge in the Appeal the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the factum of the occurrence of the alleged accident even though the application filed by the Appellant-Insurance Company under Section 170 of the Act had been rejected by the Tribunal. Hence, it is submitted, the Appellant-Insurance Company in the present case can challenge the finding recorded by the Tribunal on Issue No. 1 despite rejection of its application under Section 170 of the Act by the Tribunal. 39. In order to appreciate the submissions made by Shri K.S. Amist, learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company, it is necessary to refer to the provisions of Section 146 and Section 147 of the Act. 40. Section 146 of the Act deals with necessity for insurance against third party risk. The said Section is as under: “146. Necessity for insurance against third party risk.—(1) No person shall use, except as a passenger, or cause or allow any other person to use, a motor vehicle in a public place, unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person or that other person, as the case may be, a policy of insurance complying with the requirements of this Chapter: [Provided that in the case of a vehicle carrying, or meant to carry, dangerous or hazardous goods, there shall also be a policy of insurance under the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991(6 of 1991)]. Explanation.—A person driving a motor vehicle merely as a paid employee, while there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle no such policy as is required by this sub-section, shall not be deemed to act in contravention of the sub-section unless he knows or has reason to believe that there is no such policy in force. (2) Sub-section (1) shall not apply to any vehicle owned by the Central Government or a State Government and used for Government purposes unconnected with any commercial enterprise. (3) The appropriate Government may, by order, exempt from the operation of sub-section (1) any vehicle owned by any of the following authorities, namely: (a) the Central Government or a State Government, if the vehicle is used for Government purposes connected with any commercial enterprise; (b) any local authority; (c) any State transport undertaking: Provided that no such order shall be made in relation to any such authority unless a fund has been established and is maintained by that authority in accordance with the rules made in that behalf under this Act for meeting any liability arising out of the use of any vehicle of that authority which that authority or any person in its employment may incur to third parties. Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section, “appropriate Government” means the Central Government or a State Government, as the case may be, and- (i) in relation to any corporation or company owned by the Central Government or any State Government, means the Central Government or that State Government; (ii) in relation to any corporation or company owned by the Central Government and one or more State Governments, means the Central Government; (iii) in relation to any other State transport undertaking or any local authority, means that Government which has control over that undertaking or authority.” 41. Section 147 of the Act deals with the requirements of policies and limits of liability, and lays down as under: “147. Section 147 of the Act deals with the requirements of policies and limits of liability, and lays down as under: “147. Requirements of policies and limits of liability.—(1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which- (a) is issued by a person who is an authorised insurer; and (b) insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2)— (i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily [injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle] or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place; (ii) against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place: Provided that a policy shall not be required- (i) to cover liability in respect of the death, arising out of and in the course of his employment, of the employee of a person insured by the policy or in respect of bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment other than a liability arising under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, any such employee- (a) engaged in driving the vehicle, or (b) if it is a public service vehicle engaged as conductor of the vehicle or in examining tickets on the vehicle, or (c) if it is a goods carriage, being carried in the vehicle, or (ii) to cover any contractual liability. Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party shall be deemed to have been caused by or to have arisen out of, the use of a vehicle in a public place notwithstanding that the person who is dead or injured or the property which is damaged was not in a public place at the time of the accident, if the act or omission which led to the accident occurred in a public place. (2) Subject to the proviso to sub-section (1), a policy of insurance referred to in sub-section (1), shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any accident, up to the following limits, namely : (a) save as provided in clause (b), the amount of liability incurred; (b) in respect of damage to any property of a third party, a limit of rupees six thousand: Provided that any policy of insurance issued with any limited liability and in force, immediately before the commencement of this Act, shall continue to be effective for a period of four months after such commencement or till the date of expiry of such policy whichever is earlier. (3) A policy shall be of no effect for the purposes of this Chapter unless and until there is issued by the insurer in favour of the person by whom the policy is effected a certificate of insurance in the prescribed form and containing the prescribed particulars of any condition subject to which the policy is issued and of any other prescribed matters; and different forms, particulars and matters may be prescribed in different cases. (4) Where a cover note issued by the insurer under the provisions of this Chapter or the rules made thereunder is not followed by a policy of insurance within the prescribed time, the insurer shall, within seven days of the expiry of the period of the validity of the cover note, notify the fact to the registering authority in whose records the vehicle to which the cover note relates has been registered or to such other authority as the State Government may prescribe. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, an insurer issuing a policy of insurance under this Section shall be liable to indemnify the person or classes of persons specified in the policy in respect of any liability which the policy purports to cover in the case of that person or those classes of persons.” 42. Sub-section (1) of Section 146 of the Act provides that no person shall use, or cause or allow any other person to use, a motor vehicle in a public place, unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person or that other person, as the case may be, a policy of insurance complying with the requirements of Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (consisting of Sections 145 to 164 of the said Act). Thus, a policy of insurance complying with the requirements of Chapter XI of the Act is mandatory in case a person uses, causes or allows any other person to use, a motor vehicle in a public place, and user by such person or such other person should be covered by the terms of the Policy. 43. Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 147 of the Act, inter alia, provides that a policy of insurance must be a policy which insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy - (i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place; (ii) against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place. 44. Sub-section (1) of Section 149 of the Act, inter alia, provides that if judgment or award in respect of any such liability as is required to be covered by a policy under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 147 (being a liability covered by the terms of the policy) or under the provisions of Section 163A is obtained against any person insured by the policy, then, the insurer shall pay to the person entitled to the benefit of the decree any sum not exceeding the sum assured payable thereunder, as if he were the judgment debtor, in respect of the liability, together with any amount payable in respect of costs and any sum payable in respect of interest on that sum by virtue of any enactment relating to interest on judgments. 45. 45. This will be so even though the insurer may be entitled to avoid or cancel or may have avoided or cancelled the policy. 46. Sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the Act, inter alia, provides that 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 or 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. An insurer to whom notice of the bringing or any such proceedings is so given, shall be entitled to be made a party thereto and to defend the action on any of the grounds mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the Act. 47. Section 170 of the Act, as noted above, inter alia, provides that without prejudice to the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the Act, the insurer will be given in two situations, mentioned in Section 170 of the Act, 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. 48. From a combined reading of the above provisions, it is evident that in case a person incurs any liability in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place, or in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place, and such liability is covered by the terms of the policy, then the insurer will have to satisfy the judgment or award given in respect of such liability. However, the insurer may defend itself from its duty to satisfy such judgment or award by getting itself impleaded in the proceedings and raising the defences open to it under clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the Act. However, the insurer may defend itself from its duty to satisfy such judgment or award by getting itself impleaded in the proceedings and raising the defences open to it under clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the Act. In case the insurer is granted permission under Section 170 of the Act, it will have, without prejudice to the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the Act, 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. 49. It will, thus, be noticed that the following two questions will arise for deciding as to whether the insurer is under duty to satisfy the judgment or award in respect of the liability incurred by the insured person (i.e. the owner of the vehicle in question) in respect of the death of or bodily injury to a person as mentioned in sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 147 of the Act: (A). Whether any liability, as contemplated in sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 147, has been incurred by the insured person (i.e. the owner of the vehicle in question)? (B). Whether the liability so incurred by the insured person is covered by the terms of the insurance policy and whether the insurer is under duty to satisfy the judgment and award in respect of such liability? 50. As regards Question No. (A), this question is basically between the claimants and the insured person (i.e. the owner of the vehicle in question), as the determination of such question shows as to whether any liability has been incurred by the insured person (i.e. the owner of the vehicle in question) or not. The insurer does not come in picture till it is determined that the insured person has incurred any liability as contemplated in sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 147 of the Act. 51. After the determination of Question No. (A) is done, then the occasion arises for determining Question No. (B). In the determination of Question No. (B), the insurer may take defences as are mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the Act. 51. After the determination of Question No. (A) is done, then the occasion arises for determining Question No. (B). In the determination of Question No. (B), the insurer may take defences as are mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the Act. This is because, once the liability of the insured person has been determined in Question No. (A), it is open to the insurer to show that it is under no duty to satisfy the judgment or award as the grounds mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 149 exist in the particular case. 52. It is, however, to be noted that in case the insurer gets permission under Section 170 of the Act then it will have full right to participate at the stage of determination of Question No. (A) also. 53. Coming now to the submissions made by Shri K.S. Amist, learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company, it is noteworthy that in the present case the Appellant-Insurance Company has been denied permission under Section 170 of the Act. Therefore, the Appellant-Insurance Company cannot be permitted to raise its pleas at the stage of determination of Question No. (A) above, namely, as to whether any liability as contemplated in sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 147 has been incurred by the insured person (i.e. the owner of the vehicle in question) or not. Question as to whether the alleged accident in fact occurred or not, is a part of determination of Question No. (A). Therefore, once the permission under Section 170 of the Act has been denied to the Appellant-Insurance Company, it is not open to it to contest the finding recorded by the Tribunal in regard to the factum of occurrence of the alleged accident. 54. The Appellant-Insurance Company in the present case may, however, contest the findings recorded by the Tribunal in respect of the grounds mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the Act. 55. As discussed above, such findings are in respect of Issue Nos. 2 and 3, and the said findings do not suffer from any error or illegality or infirmity. 56. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the Appeal filed by the Appellant-Insurance Company lacks merits, and the same is liable to be dismissed. 55. As discussed above, such findings are in respect of Issue Nos. 2 and 3, and the said findings do not suffer from any error or illegality or infirmity. 56. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the Appeal filed by the Appellant-Insurance Company lacks merits, and the same is liable to be dismissed. 57. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed. 58. However, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. 59. The amount of Rs. 25,000/- deposited by the Appellant-Insurance Company while filing the present Appeal, will be remitted to the Tribunal for being adjusted towards the amount payable under the impugned Award. —————