IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL A.O. No. 195 of 2007 Jai Singh @ Jassa Singh …Appellant Versus Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & others ... Respondents Sri G.C. Lakhchaura, Advocate for appellant Sri Manish Dalakoti, holding brief of Sri D.S. Patni, Advocate for respondent no. 1 Dated: September 17, 2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred by the appellant-owner of vehicle in question, against the impugned order dated 17.4.2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge Udham Singh Nagar, in Review MACP No. 253 of 2004, thereby allowing the review petition of respondent no. 1. The claimants-Smt. Kailasho Devi and others filed a claim petition before Claims Tribunal for grant of compensation in lieu of death of deceased- Madan Singh in a motor vehicle accident alleging therein that on 25.7.2004 deceased along with friend Chokhe was going on motorcycle to his left side and at about 6.30 p.m. when they reached near village Kaluwala, Tractor No. U.P.-20E-5310 being driven by its driver rashly and negligently, hit the motorcycle of deceased, due to which deceased- Madan Singh and Chokhe Singh sustained grievous 2 injuries and deceased-Madan Singh succumbed to those injuries in Civil Hospital, Kashipur. It has also been alleged that deceased-Madan Singh was 25 years of age and was earning Rs.2,675/- per month. The claimants claimed a sum of Rs.9,50,000/- as compensation against the opposite parties. Opposite party no. 1-onwer of tractor in question/appellant before this Court, filed written statement. He has admitted that tractor in question was registered in his name and was insured with opposite party no. 2-United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and driver was having valid driving licence on the date of accident. He has also pleaded that he purchased the tractor on loan and insurance etc. of the said vehicle were managed by Bank employees and insurer has got the tractor insured by mentioning wrong registration number, while chassis number and engine number have rightly been mentioned. Therefore, the liability to pay the amount of compensation, if any, is of opposite party no. 2-insurance company. Opposite party no. 2-United India Insurance Co. Ltd. filed written statement denying the contents of claim petition for want of knowledge. In the additional pleas, it has been pleaded that drivers of motorcycle as well as tractor were plying their vehicles unauthorizedly and they were not having valid driving licence on the date of accident and tractor in question was not insured on the date of accident. Therefore, the claim petition deserves to be dismissed. 3 The learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings of parties framed relevant issues in the claim petition. Parties led evidence in support of their cases. The learned Tribunal after having considered the entire material available on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs.4,15,000/- in favour of claimants, along with interest @ 5% per annum, against opposite party no. 2-United India Insurance Co. Ltd., vide judgment and award dated 28.07.2006. Thereafter, opposite party no. 2-United India Insurance Co. Ltd. filed a review petition before the Claims Tribunal and objection was also filed by the appellant-Jai Singh (owner of tractor in question). The Tribunal decided the review petition vide its order dated 17.4.2007 observing therein that review petition is maintainable under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment and award dated 17.04.2007, the appellant-owner of tractor in question, has preferred the present appeal before this Court. Heard Sri G.C. Lakhchaura, learned counsel for appellant, Sri Manish Dalakoti, holding brief of Sri D.S. Patni, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 and perused the record. From perusal of impugned order dated 17.4.2007, it reveals that learned Tribunal has rejected the objection filed by opposite party/appellant before this Court and has afforded 4 an opportunity to insurance company to bring on record the actual fact as to whether the driver of offending vehicle was possessing genuine driving licence or not and by giving this opportunity to the insurer the Tribunal has recorded a finding that if the opportunity is not given to the insurer the purpose of justice would be frustrated. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 17.4.2007 passed by Tribunal concerned. Both the parties would be afforded opportunity to bring the actual fact before the Tribunal concerned. The review petition is still pending before the Claims Tribunal and it has been listed for hearing. For the reasons stated above, the appeal preferred against the impugned order dated 17.4.2007, deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned order dated 17.4.2007 passed by Tribunal is herby confirmed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP 5