@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
N.A. Britto, J.@mdashHeard. This appeal is filed by the Insurer and is directed against judgment/award dated 11/12/2009 of the MACT, Mapusa, by which the driver/owner along with the Insurer have been directed to pay compensation of Rs.3,46,000/-to the claimants (respondents nos.1 & 2). Shri Joshi, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/Insurer submits that the vehicle driven by respondent no.1 was insured with respondent no.2 (respondent in the original petition) and was not involved in the accident and therefore this is a case where Section 147 of the MV Act, 1988 would be attracted. Learned Counsel has placed reliance on the decisions in the case of
2. However, as can be seen from para 3 of the judgment, it was the case of the respondents that the accident took place entirely due to the fault of the deceased himself and that it is the deceased who came from opposite direction and dashed against the vehicle driven by respondent no.1 while he was proceeding from Asnora to Pilerna. That apart, the learned MACT on the basis of of evidence produced, particularly copy of FIR dated 25/05/2008, the panchanama as well as the evidence of AW2 has come to the conclusion that the truck was involved in the accident. The Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., Chandigarh V/s. Nicolletta Rohtagi & Ors. (supra) has stated that it is not permissible for an insurer to file an appeal questioning the quantum of compensation as well as the findings as regards negligence or contributory negligence of the offending vehicle. The finding in this case is that the truck of the respondents was involved in the accident and on account of the negligence of the said truck that the accident had taken place. In such a situation, it would not be open to the appellant/insurer to file the present appeal. Consequently, the same is hereby dismissed.
