IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.119 of 2010 Date of decision : July 23, 2010 National Insurance Company Ltd. …Petitioner. Versus Nirmal Kumar and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ashwani Pathak, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 3. None for other respondents. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Petitioner is an Insurance Company, which has been impleaded as a respondent in a Claim Petition, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Claim has been made, on account of the death of a passenger of a motor vehicle. Petitioner (Insurer) moved an application, under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking leave of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, to take all the defences, which are available to the insured, alleging that there is a clause in the Policy, per which insurer can raise all the defences and also there is collusion between the claimants and the insured. That application has been dismissed by the Tribunal, vide order dated 15th September, 2009, copy Annexure P-5. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. A clause in the Policy that the insurer can take all the defences cannot be a ground for permitting the insurer to raise all defences. Insurer, by virtue of the provision of Section 149, sub-section (2), of the Motor Vehicles Act, can raise only those defences, which are listed in the said provision. For taking other defences, permission of the Court, under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, is required and that permission is granted only when collusion between the claimant (s) and insured is shown. 4. It is alleged that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger and that the insured has not taken such a plea in his reply, which suggests that there is collusion between the claimants and the insured. Mere fact that the insured has not taken such a plea would not mean that collusion is there. It is insurer’s plea that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger. If the insured takes such a plea that would mean that he would be taking the responsibility, for the payment of compensation that may ultimately be awarded, on himself and exonerating the insurer from its liability to indemnify the insured. Nobody is expected to take such a suicidal plea. 5. For the foregoing reasons, I see no merit in the present petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed. Petition stands disposed of. Pending application also stands disposed of, in view of the disposal of the main petition. July 23, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J