- (1.) AMITAVA Lala, J. The application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1983 (hereinafter called as the 'act') has been rejected. The appeal has not been preferred in connection with any violation of Section 149 (2) of the Act so that it can be entertained independently at the instance of the insurance company.
(2.) THE only dispute is with regard to presence of eye-witness. It is a question of fact which has been thoroughly considered by the Tribunal and came to a finding, therefore, we do not propose to interfere with such judgment and award passed by the tribunal. Hence, the Appeal is dismissed No order is passed as to costs.
(3.) THE statutory deposit of Rs. 25,000/- made before this Court under this appeal be remitted back the concerned tribunal as prayed for by the Insurance Company so That the amount can be adjusted with the claim of the claimants. From our experience in this jurisdiction, we find that in most of the cases one line order is being passed by the learned Judges of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal accepting or rejecting the application under Section 170 of the Act without giving any reason. It has been observed by the Supreme Court in 2003 (7) SCC 212, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Jyotsnaben Sudhir bhai Patel, that there is a mandate in such Section to give minimum possible reasons to accept or reject such application.;