WPMS No. 2417 of 2007 Hon. Prafulla C. Pant, J. Shri Pankaj Purohit, Advocate present for the petitioner. Shri Mohd. Azim, Advocate present for respondent No. 7. Notices were issued to other respondents also but they have not turned up to contest this petition. Heard learned counsel for the parties present. By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 29.03.2007, passed by Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Kashipur, Udham Singh Nagar, in MACT Case No. 214 of 2006, whereby the application moved under Section 170 of Motor Vehicles Act, by the petitioner, has been rejected. It appears that the claimants (present respondents No. 2 to 6) have filed a claim petition No. 214 of 2006, for compensation against the owner (respondent No. 7) of the vehicle and the Insurance Company (present petitioner). Insurance Company, moved an application 24B for permission to contest the claim on any of the grounds available to the person against whom claim is made, alleging that the owner of the vehicle is in collusion with the persons making the claim. From the perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that there was no reason on the record for the MACT to reject the application, moved under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, moved by the petitioner/Insurance company. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, and after going through the papers on record, this Court is of the view that impugned order, passed by the tribunal is erroneous in law and the Insurance Company should have been allowed to contest the claim petition on all the grounds available to the person against whom the claim petition is filed. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed. Impugned order is quashed. Application 24B, moved before the tribunal, stands allowed. (P. C. P., J.) Dt. 10.09.2009 S