IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7077 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: January 17, 2011. United India Insurance Company Limited. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus Devender and others. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Shivrain, Advocate for respondent No.1. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against order dated 06.10.2010 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar vide which application filed by the petitioner under Section 170 of Motor Vehicles Act (for short the ‘Act’) for permission to contest the case on all the grounds available to respondents No.2 and 3 i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle, was dismissed. CR No.7077 of 2010 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of decision of the present revision petition are that, a petition for compensation under the Act was filed by respondent No.1 – claimant against respondents No.2 and 3 and the present petitioner as Insurance Company of offending truck bearing registration No. HR 61 7005. The truck was driven by Amar Singh, respondent No.2 and owned by Bhupender, respondent No.3 at the time of accident. After completion of evidence of claimant the case was fixed for evidence of respondents. However, respondents No.2 and 3 closed the evidence without adducing any evidence except for tendering some documents i.e. copy of insurance policy and copy of driving license. The present application under Section 170 of the Act has been filed for permission to contest the claim petition on all the grounds available to respondents No.2 and 3 on the plea that they have failed to contest the petition. However, the same was dismissed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar vide impugned order against which the present revision petition has been filed. Section 170 of the Act reads as under “170.Impleading insurer in certain cases. -Where in the course of any inquiry, the Claims Tribunal is satisfied that-- (a) there is collusion between the person making the claim and the person against whom the claim is made, or (b) the person against whom the claim is made has failed to contest the claim, it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, direct that the insurer who may be liable in respect of such claim, shall be impleaded as a party to the proceeding and the insurer so 2 CR No.7077 of 2010 impleaded shall thereupon have, without prejudice to the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of section 149, the right to contest the claim on all or any of the grounds that are available to the person against whom the claim has been made.” A bare perusal of the aforementioned provision shows that if Tribunal is satisfied that there is collusion between the person claiming the compensation and the person against whom claim is made Or the person against whom the claim is made has failed to contest the claim, it may for the reasons to be recorded in writing direct that the insurer is having right to contest the claim on all the grounds that are available to the person against whom the claim has been made. In the present case, no evidence has been adduced by respondents No.2 and 3 and they have failed to contest the claim petition. It was only thereafter, that application has been filed by the present Insurance Company for permission to contest the claim of petitioner on all the grounds available to respondents No.2 and 3 i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle. Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar vide impugned order has dismissed the said prayer merely on the ground that it cannot be said that there was any collusion between the petitioner –claimant and driver & owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. However, the collusion is not the only ground for allowing the application of Insurance Company even if the person against whom the claim is made has failed to contest the claim petition, then the Insurance company is having right to contest the same on all the grounds available to driver and owner of the offending vehicle. Even if the driver and the owner of offending vehicle fails to contest the petition, permission can be granted to Insurance Company. Merely on filing written statement, it cannot be said that respondents No.2 3 CR No.7077 of 2010 and 3 i.e. the driver and owner, are contesting the claim petition. Rather they should have effectively contested the same. Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar should have allowed the application filed on behalf of Insurance Company seeking permission to contest the claim on all the grounds available to driver and owner of the offending vehicle. Hence, impugned order declining request of Insurance Company cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and the same is, hereby, set aside. As a consequence thereof, the application filed by petitioner- Insurance Company is allowed and the petitioner-company is allowed to contest the claim petition on all the grounds available to driver and owner of the offending vehicle. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) January 17, 2011. JUDGE 'om' 4