JUDGMENT 1. 1. Abovementioned three appeals have been filed against the award dated 29-10-2002 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kishangarhbas, Alwar, whereby he has awarded Rs. 2,45,566/- in MAC Case No. 125/99; Rs. 1,06,688/- in MAC Case No. 25/2000 and Rs. 50,000/- in MAC Case No. 65/99 respectively. 2. Since all these three appeals are preferred against the common award dated 29-10-2002, hence, all these appeals are decided by this common judgment. 3. At the very outset, learned counsel Mr. Prasant Joshi, for respondent No. 1 and Mr. Narendra Mewara, counsel for respondent No. 3 have objected the maintainability of the appeals and have 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 are not maintainable and deserve to be dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents have cited a judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court rendered in the case " National Insurance Co. Ltd., Chandigarh v. Nicolletta Rohtagi & Ors." reported in AIR 2002 SC 3350 : (2002 AIR SCW 3899). 5. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Kartar Singh has opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents but later on fairly conceded that the appeal is not maintainable. 6. In the case of "Nicolletta Rohtagi & Ors." (supra), Hon ble the Supreme Court has held as under:- "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". 7. Learned counsel for the respondents have also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon ble the Apex Court in the case " Shankarayya and Anr. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and another" reported in 1998 (3) SCC 140 : ( AIR 1998 SC 2968 ) wherein Hon ble the Apex Court has observed as under:- "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. The same observation was also made by Hon ble the Apex Court in the case " Narendra Kumar and Anr. v. Yarenissa and Ors." reported in 1998 (9) SCC 202 . 9. I have gone through the observations made in the aforesaid judgments. The same observation was also made by Hon ble the Apex Court in the case " Narendra Kumar and Anr. v. Yarenissa and Ors." reported in 1998 (9) SCC 202 . 9. I have gone through the observations made in the aforesaid judgments. I am of the view that the present controversy is squarely covered by the observations made in the aforesaid judgments as the present appeals have been filed by the insurer questioning the quantum of compensation as well as findings as regards negligence or contributory negligence of the offending vehicle. 10. Accordingly, all these three civil Misc. appeal Nos. 513/03, 516/03 and 571/03 are not maintainable and same are hereby dismissed as not maintainable. Consequence thereof, the award dated 29-10-2002 is hereby confirmed. 11. Consequently, the stay application also stands disposed of.Appeals dismissed. *******