IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7713 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: March 11, 2011. The New India Assurance Company Limited. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus Smt. Baljeet Kaur @Balbir Kaur and others. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. V.Ramswaroop, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jagram Singh Cooner, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 14.10.2010 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mohali, Annexure P5 vide which application filed by petitioner under Section 170 of Motor Vehicles Act (for short the ‘Act’) for permission to contest the petition on all the grounds available to present respondents No.5 and 6 i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle, was dismissed. CR No.7713 of 2010 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. Facts relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are that, a petition for compensation under Section 166 of the Act was filed by respondents No.1 to 4 against respondents No.5 & 6 and the present petitioner. The petition was contested by petitioner as well as respondents No.5 and 6 by filing the separate written statements. Issues were framed. Evidence of claimants was concluded. Evidence of present petitioner was also concluded. However, when the case was at the stage of evidence of respondents No.5 and 6, they were proceeded against ex parte. At that stage a point was raised on behalf of Insurance Company that present respondents No.5 and 6 have failed to contest the petition of the claimants and hence, the application under Section 170 of the Act which was already filed by the petitioner-Insurance Company for permission to contest the claim petition on all the grounds available to respondents No.5 and 6 be allowed. However, the same was dismissed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mohali vide impugned order by observing as under:- “A perusal of the file reveals that the application u/s 170 M.V. Act filed by the respondent No.3 Insurance Company is still pending for disposal. Heard on the said application. There is nothing on the file that this claim petition has been filed in collusion with respondents No.1 and 2. Rather, the respondents No.1 and 2 have hotly contested this claim petition. They have not only filed the written statement denying the accident, but they have also cross-examined the witnesses of the claimants effectively. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondents no.1 and 2 have failed to contest this claim petition, nor there is 2 CR No.7713 of 2010 anything on the file that this claim petition has been filed in collusion with them. Therefore, finding no merit in this application, the same stands dismissed.” It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- Insurance Company that earlier written statement was filed by respondents No.1 and 2 and they also cross-examined witnesses of claimants and thereafter, the case was adjourned to 03.08.2010. On that day respondents No.5 and 6 were proceeded against ex parte and the case was fixed for arguments. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner-Insurance Company is having right to argue the claim petition on all the grounds on which present respondents No.5 and 6 could resist the claim of the claimants. Hence, it is contended that the impugned order be modified only to the extent that petitioner-Insurance Company be permitted to argue the matter on all the grounds available to respondents No.5 and 6 i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 4 that respondents No.5 and 6 have filed written statement contesting the claim of claimants and they also cross-examined the witnesses of claimants and however, merely on the ground that they are proceeded against ex parte lateron, application under Section 170 of the Act filed by petitioner-Insurance Company cannot be allowed. It is pertinent to reproduce Section 170 of the Act, which reads as under:- “170.Impleading insurer in certain cases. -Where in the course of any inquiry, the Claims Tribunal is satisfied that-- 3 CR No.7713 of 2010 (a) there is collusion between the person making the claim and the person against whom the claim is made, or (b) the person against whom the claim is made has failed to contest the claim, it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, direct that the insurer who may be liable in respect of such claim, shall be impleaded as a party to the proceeding and the insurer so impleaded shall thereupon have, without prejudice to the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of section 149, the right to contest the claim on all or any of the grounds that are available to the person against whom the claim has been made.” A bare perusal of the aforementioned provision shows that if Tribunal is satisfied that there is collusion between the person claiming the compensation and the person against whom claim is made Or the person against whom the claim is made has failed to contest the claim, it may for the reasons to be recorded in writing direct that the insurer is having right to contest the claim on all the grounds that are available to the person against whom the claim has been made. In the present case, though it is not shown that there is collusion between claimants and driver & owner of the vehicle, however, after initially contesting the claim petition, driver and owner stopped contesting the same and they were ordered to be proceeded against ex parte. Hence, in view of these facts, the present petition is accepted and the impugned order is, hereby, set aside. As a consequence thereof, the application filed by petitioner-Insurance Company under section 170 of the Act is allowed and the petitioner-Company is permitted to contest the claim 4 CR No.7713 of 2010 petition on all the grounds available to present respondents No.5 and 6 i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle. It is made clear that petitioner-Insurance Company will be having right to argue the case on all the grounds available to present respondents No.5 and 6 as the case is at the stage of arguments and however, petitioner-Company will not be allowed to adduce any other evidence as its evidence already stood closed. Disposed of accordingly. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) March 11, 2011. JUDGE 'om' 5