K.M. Agarwal, J.
1. This is an appeal by the Insurance Company and the owner-cum-driver of the motor bike against the award of compensation made in favour of the respondent by the Claims Tribunal.
2. The respondent is a police constable, who was dashed on 17-9-1979 against the motor cycle No. CPH 4354, which was owned and driven by the appellant No. 2 on the date of the accident. As a result of the accident, the respondent sustained fracture of his right radisu one ulna bones and a formity of his left index finger besides sustaining other minor injuries He, therefore, preferred a petition for compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,000/-. After recording a finding that the appellant No. 2 was rash and negligent in driving the motor bike and that the vehicle was insured with appellant No- 1 the Claims Tribunal was pleased to award a sum of Rs. 20,000/- by way of compensation to the respondent against the appellants. The entire amount has been made payble by the Insurance Company. Being aggrieved, the appellant have jointly preferred the said appeal.
3. The learned Counsel for the appellant was unable to show any infirmity in the rinding recorded by the Claims Tribunal about the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle at the relevant time and date. He tried to address the court only on the quantum of damages awarded to the respondent.
4. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the appeal. He submitted that as that as the Claims Tribunal has imposed no legal burden on the appellant No. 2 and the entire amount has been directed to be paid by the Insurance Company, he is not a person aggrieved and therefore, no appeal on his behalf is maintainable He further submitted that the Insurance Company could not challenge the quantum of compensation. He argued that in view of the provisions of Section 96(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. the appeal challenges the claim of the appellant is limited within the grounds mentioned therein. Under the circumstances, the appellant No. 1 has no available ground to challenge the impugned award. In support of his contention the learned Counsel relied on the cases reported in 19 0 ACJ 501, Kantilal & Bros. v. Ramarani Debi (Cal.); 1978 ACJ 137, New India Assurance Co. Ltd.v. Shtv Kumar (H P.) and : AIR1985All44 .
5. I find substance in the aforesaid contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent. In paragraph 27 of the impugned award, it has been specifically found that the insurer alone is liable to pay the entire amount of the award. Consequently, the appellant No. 2 is not a party aggrieved and therefore, no appeal is competent on his behalf.
6. The amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is not in excess of the liability of the insurer fixed under the agreement of insurance. Consequently, no appeal is competent on behalf of the Insurance Company against the quantum of award. I am supported in my view by the authorities cited by the learned Counsel for the respondent and referred to hereinbefore.
7. In the result, this appeal fails and it is hereby dismissed as not maintainable. However, in the circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own costs as incurred.