JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. Amey Kakodkar, who appears along with Mr. Pankaj Shirodkar for the Appellant, Mr. J. Godinho for respondents nos.1,2 & 3, and Mr. Shailesh Phadte for respondent no.5. 2. This appeal has been filed by the Appellant - Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 30.08.2018 in Claim Petition No.43/2013. 3. Mr. Kakodkar submits that the Tribunal has erred in recording findings on rashness and negligence and determining the quantum of compensation. 4. In this case, there is no dispute that the Appellant- Insurance Company obtained no leave under Section 170 of the MV Act before the Tribunal. 5. Therefore, by following the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., Amravati V/s. Surekha w/o. Prakash Ghurde and ors., (2020) 2 Bom.CR 465 this appeal will have to be dismissed as not maintainable. 6. However, Mr. Kakodkar, learned Counsel for the Appellant - Insurance Company, pointed out that in Oriental Insurance Ltd. V/s. Sangita Devi and Ors., 2016 SCC Online Del. 1221. The Delhi High Court, relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. V/s. Sudha Rani, Civil Appeal No.8654/2013 decided on 24.09.2013 has held that once the insurance company is voluntarily impleaded as a party to the claim petition by the claimants, it can raise all defenses, including the defenses concerning the quantum of compensation. He submitted that despite best efforts, he was not in a position to obtain a copy of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sudha Rani (supra). 7. Mr. Kakodkar also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Kamala Sen, 2014 ACJ 2396 which according to him, holds that where the insurance company is impleaded as a party respondent, it can raise all contentions that are available to resist the claim. In addition, he pointed out that the Hon'ble Supreme Court held this in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. V/s. Shila Datta, (2011) 10 SCC 509 . 8. Although the Division Bench of this Court in I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Co. In addition, he pointed out that the Hon'ble Supreme Court held this in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. V/s. Shila Datta, (2011) 10 SCC 509 . 8. Although the Division Bench of this Court in I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. case (supra) may not have referred to the decision of the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in Sangita Devi (supra) or the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that was referred to therein, the Division Bench, has considered the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited V/s. Nicoletta Rohtagi, (2002) 7 SCC 456 . United India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Bhushan Sachdev, (2002) 2 SCC 265 . Shila Datta (supra), and Josephine James V/s. United India Insurance Company Limited, (2013) 16 SCC 711 and held that notwithstanding the reference made, the decisions in Nicoletta Rohtagi (supra) and Josephine James (supra) hold good and based upon the same, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company questioning the quantum of the compensation would not be maintainable in the absence of permission under Section 170(b) of the said Act. 9. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. However, dismissal of this appeal will not prevent the Appellant - Insurance Company from instituting any other proceedings if maintainable in law. 10. The Appellant - Insurance Company has deposited the awarded amount in this appeal. Mr. Godinho states that the claimants have withdrawn no amounts to date. Accordingly, leave is granted to withdraw an amount of ?10,00,000/- forthwith. For this, the claimants will have to furnish identification documents and bank details so that the Registry can transfer this amount of ?10,00,000/- into their bank accounts directly. 11. However, leave is granted to withdraw the balance amount only after six weeks from today. Unless, of course, the Appellant - Insurance Company, in the meanwhile, secures restraint orders for such withdrawal. 12. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. Accordingly, there shall be no orders for costs.