IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.316 of 2011 Date of decision : September 6, 2011 The New India Assurance Company …Petitioner. Versus Smt. Kamlesh Kumari and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. B.M. Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents : None. Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed, for quashing the award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, given in favour of respondents Kamlesh Kumari and others. 3. Claim petition, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, was filed by respondent Kamlesh Kumari and her minor children, for seeking compensation for the death of Ramesh Kumar, husband of Kamlesh Kumari. It was stated in the petition that the deceased, besides earning `6,400/- per month, on account of salary as Electrician, because of employment with a private company, used to cultivate his land and earn about `5,000/- a month. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… 4. Respondent Kamlesh Kumari appeared as a witness and testified that the deceased owned 15-16 Bighas land and used to cultivate that land, in addition to serving as Electrician with a private company. She also stated that the income of the deceased from occupation of cultivation of land was about `5,000/- a month. In the cross-examination, she denied that the deceased did not own any land. No evidence, in rebuttal, was adduced by the owner of the vehicle or the present petitioner, i.e. the Insurance Company. 5. Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held that the deceased used to earn `4,000/- a month, by following the occupation of agriculturist, in addition to earning `6,400/- as an employee of a company. 6. Learned counsel, representing the petitioner, submits that the petitioner had no opportunity or occasion to adduce evidence to rebut the oral evidence of respondent Kamlesh Kumari, as it had not been permitted to take the defences available to an insured, despite it (the petitioner) having moved an application, under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In case the petitioner felt that its application, under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, had been wrongly rejected, it could have challenged that order. The petitioner could have asked the insured to adduce evidence to rebut the testimony of respondent Kamlesh Kumari, one of the …3… claimants, and in the event of the refusal of the insured, petitioner could have again approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, seeking permission to take all defences available to the insurer. For the foregoing reasons, I do not think this to be a fit case for interfering with the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, by invoking the powers, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. September 6, 2011(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J