C. R. No. 2103 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 2103 of 2009 Date of Decision : December 22, 2009 United India Insurance Company Ltd. .... Petitioner Vs. Ranjana Mehta and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. D. P. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate for Mr. Mohit Garg, Advocate for respondent no. 1. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : United India Insurance Company Ltd. has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 20.11.2008 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (in short – the Tribunal), whereby application moved by the petitioner herein under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short – the Act) has been dismissed. Ranjana Mehta – respondent no. 1 herein filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation for injuries suffered by her in accident, which took place between bus No. CH-01-G-8806 of C. R. No. 2103 of 2009 2 Chandigarh Transport Undertaking (in short – C.T.U.) and car No. CH-03- U-0809. The petitioner herein is insurer of the aforesaid car. Respondents no.2 and 3 herein are owner and driver respectively of the aforesaid bus. Claimant herself is owner of the car. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that application under Section 170 of the Act, moved by the petitioner herein, was dismissed on the ground that the respondents were contesting the claim petition. However, the learned Tribunal failed to notice that respondents no.2 and 3 herein (arrayed as respondents no.1 and 2 in the claim petition) were owner and driver respectively of the bus, whereas the petitioner herein is insurer of the car and nobody is contesting the claim petition regarding liability of the insured or insurer of the car. In fact, driver of the car has not even been impleaded as party to the claim petition, whereas insured owner of the car is claimant herself. It appears that the learned Tribunal has completely failed to apply its mind and passed the impugned order in a routine manner. The order is completely illegal and unsustainable. In view of the aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed and impugned order dated 20.11.2008, in so far as application moved by the petitioner herein under Section 170 of the Act was dismissed, is set aside and the application under Section 170 of the Act moved by the petitioner herein is allowed and the petitioner is permitted to contest the claim petition on all grounds including those available to owner and driver of the car. December 22, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE