1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 2418 of 2007 (M/S) United India Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Kashipur, through Divisional Manager, Division Officer Nainital Road, Haldwani, District Nainital. ……Petitioner. Versus 1. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judte/Kashipur, District U.S. Nagar. 2. Lallu aged about 28 years son of Sri Khalil resident of Vijaynagar, New Basti, Tehsil Kashipur, District U.S. Nagar. ….Respondent/Claimant. 3. Chhamman son of Ramjani resident of Mohalla Fatehulla Ganj behind Muslim Inter College, Tehsil Thakurdwara, District Moradabad. …..Respondents. Sri Pankaj Purohit, Advocate, for the petitioner. Sri R.C. Arya, Brief Holder, for the respondent no. 1. Mohd. Azim, Advocate, for the respondent no. 2. None present for the respondent no. 3. Date:- December 9, 2009 Hon’ble B.S. Verma J. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 11.5.2007 contained in Annexure No. 4 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, the respondent no. 1 whereby the application moved by the petitioner Company under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act to contest the claim petition has been rejected. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on the ground that the learned Tribunal fell into error while deciding the application under Section 170 of Motor Vehicles Act by not appreciating the fact that the filing of the written statement by owner of the vehicle and cross-examining the witnesses adduced on behalf of the claimant/respondent would 2 not suffice. Apart from that it was also to be seen as to how the witnesses have been cross-examined. It is only the owner or the driver of the vehicle who may file the driving licence and other documents as insurance policy, permits etc. No extensive cross- examination has been conducted by the insured/owner on the point of quantum, age, income, negligence and contributory negligence. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the cross-examination was also made on behalf of the insurance company but if the application is allowed that cannot be led in evidence for the just decision of the claim petition. The claimant has no objection if the application is allowed to contest the claim petition. The court below has rejected the application on the ground that the cross- examination was made on behalf of the owner of the vehicle and written statement was also filed. There is no representation on behalf of the owner of the vehicle despite the service. In my opinion, no prejudice is caused to the owner of the vehicle, if the insurance company is allowed to contest the case. The application 19 (c) dated 6.2.2007 is allowed. Accordingly, impugned order passed by the court below dated 11.5.2007 is set aside. It is directed that the learned M.A.C.T. concerned shall decide the claim petition as expeditiously as possible after hearing both the parties. With the above observation, the writ petition is allowed. All the pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. (B.S. Verma, J.) 9.12.2009 RMY 3