IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.663 of 2006 DIVISIONAL MANGAER Versus MEENA DEVI & ORS ----------- 4. 16.10.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner with reference to the impugned order has submitted that as a matter of fact the application filed by the petitioner on 9.12.2004, as contained in Annexure 1, in fact had contained both the grounds seeking leave of the court to contest the claim of compensation by the Insurance Company in terms of section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act but the court below has some how gathered an impression that the permission was sought only under section 170(a) of the Act. On perusal of the application, as contained in Annexure 1, it would appear that the prayer made by the petitioner was only in terms of section 170(a) of the act. However, the facts which were mentioned in the application also go to show that the ground could have been developed under section 170(b) of the Act, inasmuch as it was mentioned that despite service of notice 2 the owner and the driver had not appeared. Counsel for the petitioner, therefore, seems to be correct in at least assailing the impugned order to the extent that the court below has acted rather too technically in rejecting the application when at least from perusal of the application such a ground was developed. Accordingly, this application is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh application seeking leave in terms of section 170(b) of the Act and in case such an application is filed the court below will proceed to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/