HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH‘ BILASPUR Wn't Petition? o. 3391 ofzoo7 Petitioners 1. Vmh Jatav agad 40 years Wd/o Late r Banshldhar Jatav Sandeep Jatav, aged 17 years. $lo. Rajan Jahv. aged 15 years Slo. Late ‘ Banshidhar Jatav Late Banshldhar Jatav Sagar Jaiav, agod 9 years, S/o Late Banshidhar Jatav No.2 to 5 miners through namral guardian mother petitidner No.1 a resident of village Nayakbandha, Pandepara, Abhanpur, Tahsi! and DistrictRaipur (C.G.) Versus 1. Uday Shankar Mishra Ste $iiri PL Mishra RIO Amera, Post Chandi PS Abhanpur Abhanpur Tahsii and District Raipur (C.G.) 4 " Shri Banshidhar Jatav 2 3 41 Ku Ekm Jatav, aged 13 yaars, Dlo 5 Respondents 2. The Oriental insurance Company Limited Through Dwisionai Manager, Dwislonal Offce Madma Buiiding, Jail Road Ralpur City, Tahsll and Distnct Raipur (C.G.) (Writ Petition under Articie 226/ 227 of the Constitution of indie) SB: Hon’bie Mr. Justice Satish K Agnihotri Present: Shri Raghavendra Pradhan counsei for the petitioners ORAL ORDER (Passed on 21" June,~ 2007) By this petition filed under Artiste 227 sf the Constiution‘ of India‘ the petitioners impugns the Iegaiity and validity of the order dated 02-05-2007 (Annexure Ps1), whereunder the respondent No.2 insurance company has been permitted to defend the claim'case on behalf of the respondent No.1 also. The relevant facts for the purpose of adjudication of this petition are that the petitioners-claimam have filed a claim case under the provisions of Section 170 of the n , ‘ Motot Vshictes Act, 1988 (hereinafter mfermd to ‘the Act 1988’). The respondent No.2 insurance Company med an application under sub-section (b) of me Section 170 of the Act, 1988 in pending Ciaim Case Nu.60 of 87' (Vi‘mla Jatav and Others Vs. Uday Shanker Mlshra and another), pending before the 10‘“ Additional Meter Accident Ciaims Tribunai, Raipur, on the ground that the owner of the vehicle against whom the claim 3e is med » > has failed to contest and defend the case property. The Tribunal after'hearing all the parties and considering the reply flied by the claimants-petitioners came to me conclusion that the respondentnoz has established the fact that the respondent No.1 has failed to contest the claim case properly and allowed the application ef-the respondent No.2 filed under Section 170‘ (b) of‘the Act, 1988. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the applicant (insurance. Company) seeking permission under the provisions: of Section 170 ot‘the Act, 1988 has to satisfy both the conditions as enshrined in Sub~Section (a) and (b) cf 170 of'theAct, 1988. The u learned counsei relied on'a decision of the Kerala High Court in National Insurance Company» Ltd. Vs. Mary Zenet1 . It is beneficial to quote me provisions of Section 170 of the Act, 1988, which reads as under: “170. Impleading insurer in certain' cases.- Where in the course of any inquiry, the claims Tribunai is satisfied that - (a) there is coliusion 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, O) it may, for reasons to b0 recorded in ‘ writing, direct that the insurer who may be i liable in respect of such claim, shall be impleaded as a pany to the proceeding and the insurer so impleaded shall thereupon have. without prejudice to the e provisions contained in subsection (2) of section 149. the right to contest the ciaim on all tor any of the groundsthat are avéilabie to the person against whom the oiaim has been made.” Theprovieion of the Section 170 (a) and (b) is clear and ' unambiguous. It is trite that the provisions of law need no aid for interpretation, if‘the provision is unambiguous and clear. Section 170 of the Act, 1988 [makes it clear that the Tribunalnhas to satisfy itself either on the . conditions avaiiable under Section 170 (a) or conditions available under Section 170 (bi. It is necessary to sahsfy either of the two conditions, as enshrinedvin (a) and (b) ‘ or the Section 17o of the Act, 1988. Having heard teamed counsel for the petitioners, ,l have i pone through the judgment and order passed by the leamed Tribunal and perused the documents appended thereto. lt is true that the Tribunal has satisiied iselfwith regard to the fact as to whether a person, who is~owner, against whom the claim is made, has failed to contest the claim or not. The impugnedoi'der is unexceptionable and it does not warrant any interference. it is well settled principle of law that under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia, this Court has jurisdiction of judicial review of the order passed by theOourtbelcw, in the event, there is manifest and apparent error on the. face of the proceedings based on the clear ignorance or utter disregard to the provisions of law or there is grave failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned-q thereby. Further, this Court can also entertain the petition in its supervisory jurisdiction if there is perversity, h r irregularity or illegality in the process of decision; not in' the decision itself. In view of the foregoing discussion, I do not find any manifest and apparent'error on the face of he proceedings. As a result, this petition is dismissed, ’/’_*.__. Sdl— . Satish K. Agnihotn Judge 1999 (1) MotnrCIaim Cases 193' summarily. 1 . é A V x