B.K.Ray, J. - (1.)RESPONDENTS Nos. 1 to 3 filed a claim petition under Section 110 -A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 claiming compensation of Rs. 45,000/ - for the death of one Puma Chandra Sethi in a motor accident before the 2nd. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Puri. Their case is mentioned in the petition was as follows: Purna Chandra was working as a helper in a truck bearing registration No. ORC 643 belonging to one Mahabir Ram. On 12 -1 -73 at about 11.00 a.m., Purna Chandia got down from the truck and was standing on the road. It was at that time another truck bearing registration No. ORP 1137 belonging to Respondent No. 4 came by that road with load. This truck was being driven most rashly and negligently at a very high speed without bellowing horn. It dashed against Purna Chandra as a result of which he died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident. Purna Chandra at the time of his death was healthy and very active and was earning Rs. 150/ - per month. Besides, he was also getting free food from his employer.
(2.)THE Tribunal, after considering the evidence led by the parties, awarded a compensation of Rs. 19,720/ - with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of application till the date of realisation with costs of Rs. 200/ - in favour of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Hence the appeal by the insurer of the truck bearing registration No. ORP 1137.
The owner of the truck bearing registration No. ORP 1137 (Respondent No. 4) contested the claim before the Tribunal by filing a written statement and so also the insurer of the said truck. Both of them, besides, filing separate written statements cross -examined the witnesses examined on behalf of the claimants. It is thus very clear that there was no collusion between the claimant -Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 on one hand and Respondent No. 4 on the other. Hence it could not be said that a case under Section 110 -C of the Motor Vehicles Act was made out to enable the insurer to take all the defences available to the insured. That apart, the insurer not having filed the policy before the Tribunal to show if it has reserved to itself the right to take all the defences available to the insured, it is not open to it to take any defence other than what is provided under Section 96(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Hence it must be held that the insurer has no right to prefer this appeal challenging the finding of the Tribunal about the rashness and negligence of the driver of the truck bearing registration No. ORP 1137 and about the quantum of damages.

(3.)IN the result, therefore, this appeal must be held to have no merit which is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances, there will be no order for costs.