IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.3214 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 26.4.2011 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. ......Appellant(s) Versus Rupinder Kaur wd/o Jagtar Singh and others ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the appellant. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) This is insurer's appeal challenging the impugned award whereby claimants/respondents No.1 to 4 have been awarded compensation of ` 5,24,000/- on account of death of one Jagtar Singh caused due to the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicular accident due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.5, who was also owner of the offending vehicle. Admittedly, the offending vehicle was insured at the time of accident. Before this Court, the appellant-Insurance Company has challenged the impugned award on the ground that the offending vehicle which was insured with it, was involved falsely and in fact, no accident had taken place with this vehicle. Counsel for the appellant has further argued that in fact there was a collusion between the claimants and the driver/owner of the vehicle and thus, the impugned award is liable to be set aside. Admittedly, the findings of the Tribunal on the question of negligence have been recorded against the offending vehicle which was insured by the appellant. The findings on the issue of negligence or quantum, cannot be challenged by the insurer unless a permission is granted under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. FAO No.3214 of 2011(O&M) -2- In the present case, the appellant-Insurance Company had filed an application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, however, the said application was rejected by the Tribunal on 9.2.2011 holding as under: “Reply filed. Copy supplied. Heard on the application u/s 170 of M.V. Act. There is nothing on the file that the claim petition has been filed in collusion with respondent No.1. Rather, the respondent No.1 has hotly contested this claim petition. He has not only filed the written statement denying the accident, but he has also cross- examined the witnesses of the claimants effectively and his counsel has also opposed the claim petition at the time of arguments. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent No.1 has failed to contest this claim petition, nor there is anything on the file that this claim petition has been filed in collusion with him. Therefore, finding no merit in this application, the same stands dismissed.” I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned award. There is no evidence on record to show the collusion between the driver/owner of the offending vehicle and the respondent-claimants. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant to the effect that driver/owner of the vehicle has not stepped into the witness box itself is sufficient to hold that there was a collusion, is without any merit. It may be seen that the claim petition was contested by respondent No.5 by filing written statement denying the accident. The witnesses of the claimants were also cross-examined by his counsel effectively. The claim petition was also opposed at the time of arguments. Moreover, if respondent No.5 had not stepped into the witness box, the appellant could have summoned the aforesaid respondent. Admittedly, no such attempt was made. FAO No.3214 of 2011(O&M) -3- In this view of the matter, I find no error in the order dated 9.2.2011 whereby the Tribunal has rejected the prayer of the appellant to permit the Insurance Company to take all possible grounds to contest the claim. Once that is so, the appellant cannot further argue on the question of negligence or compensation as determined by the Tribunal. Dismissed. April 26, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE