- (1.) In the present writ petition, petitioner is assailing the validity of the order dated 3.12.2009, passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal refusing to recall the order dated 29.3.2009.
(2.) Brief background of the case is that M.A.C.P. No. 679 of 2007, Smt. Anjum Khan and Ors. v. Sunil Kumar and Ors. claiming sum of Rs. 10 lacs with interest on account of death of Sri Parvez Khan had been filed. In the said claim petition insurance company entered appearance and filed its written statement. Petitioner's company moved an application dated 17.3.2009 under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Said application in question was rejected on 29.3.2009 by giving cogent reason that mere non-production of original copy of the D.L. of driver in evidence cannot be a ground to reach to the conclusion that he is in collusion with the claimant. It was also mentioned that cross-examination has duly been done by claimant as witness and owner is contesting the case effectively. Subsequent to the same petitioner's company moved another application dated 26.3.2009 mentioning therein that driver of the vehicle is necessary who had not been produced by opposite party No. 1 and therefore opposite party No. 1 be directed to produce the driver in evidence in case he does not produce him the petitioner's company be permitted to summon him on their own expenses. Said application has been rejected. Again thereafter another application was moved on 19.11.2009 under Section 170 of Motor Vehicles Act and said application has also been rejected on 3.12.2009. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed.
(3.) Sri Vivek Birla. advocate contended with vehemence that right under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be brushed aside on flimsy grounds and the order which has been passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal are unjustifiable order on the fact of it, and such order is liable to be quashed.;