IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.1430 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: March 1, 2011 Smt.Mala Devi and others .....Petitioners v. Dilbag Singh and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.R.S.Mamli, Advocate for the petitioners. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 8.4.2010, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yamunanagar at Jagadhri, (hereinafter to be referred as the `Tribunal') vide which application filed by respondent no.2-Insurance Company under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (hereinafter to be referred as the `Act') has been allowed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned Tribunal. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that impugned order has been passed by learned Tribunal in haste without seeking any reply from petitioners-claimants. It is also contended that the petition was duly contested by respondent no.1, who is driver-cum-owner by filing a written statement and though learned Tribunal mentioned in the order that there was no collusion between petitioners and respondent no.1, however, despite that the application has been 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- (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.” Hence, a bare perusal of the aforementioned provision of law shows that learned Tribunal may grant permission to the Insurance Company to contest the claim on all grounds that are available to the person against whom the claim has been made, if there is collusion between the person making the claim and the person against whom the claim is made or the person against whom the claim is made has failed to contest the claim. In the present case, the application has been filed just at the stage of framing of issues. Even learned Tribunal has observed in the impugned order that there is no collusion between persons making the claim and the person against whom the claim is made. Written statement has also been filed by respondent no.1- driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle contesting the claim of the petitioners-claimants. Hence, at this stage it cannot be said that person against whom claim is made has failed to contest the claim. Moreover, the impugned order has been passed without taking any reply of present petitioners-claimants. As a sequel to my above discussion, the present revision petition is accepted. Impugned order is set aside. Learned trial Court is directed to decide the said application afresh by seeking reply of present petitioners-claimants. Disposed of accordingly. 1.3.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge