who were travelling in a private car. The contention of the Insurance Company is that the said vehicle was only covered by an act only policy. Further, it has to be stated that it is necessary to consider the question of insurer's liability. By resorting to the word 'Not withstanding' under Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal jumps to the conclusion that the defence of no liability cannot be raised by the Insurance Company. This is directly against the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Swaran Singh (SC), (2004 (1) KLT 781). In paragraph 102 (ii), the Supreme Court has made it clear that “Insurer is entitled to raise defence in a claim petition filed under section 163A or 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, interalia, in terms of Section 149(2) (a)(ii) of the said Act.” So, there is a defence available to the Insurance Company and, therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that the said defence is not available is incorrect. Therefore, the orders under challenge are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal with a direction to consider the case afresh. Especially by first getting satisfied against the permanent disablement supported by medical evidence as contemplated under the Act and also to consider the question as
