Rakesh Tiwari - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that Sri Himmat Arora died in an accident said to have been caused by Maruti Van No. U. P. 25-K-7081 which was insured by the petitioner's company. He was husband of respondent No. 2 Smt. Namita Arora aged about 43 years, father of Ms. Shweta Arora aged about 22 years and son Manish Arora aged about 20 years. THE petitioner is United India Insurance Ltd. filed an application under Section 170 of Motor Vehicles Act for granting permission to contest the claim petition on the ground that owner of the vehicle was not contesting the claim petition properly. The Motor Accident Tribunal rejected the application of the petitioner filed under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act vide order dated 22.8.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that they have full right to file application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act to contest the claim. He has urged on two points that : (1) unless conditions precedent specified in Section 170 is satisfied, insurance company will not be able to take any defence beyond the other provision of the Act in appeal or even if no appeal is preferred by the insured against award of Tribunal, and (2) The application of the petitioner under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been illegally rejected by the Tribunal vide order impugned dated 22.8.2008 by a non-speaking order and therefore if the petitioner is not permitted by the Tribunal to contest the claim on merits by taking all the grounds available on behalf of the owner of the vehicle, it will undoubtedly prejudice insurer to a great extent.
(3.) IN respect of his first contention the counsel for the petitioner has relied upon paragraph 10 of the judgment rendered by the Kerala High Court in Oriental INsurance Company Ltd. v. Narayanan Nair and others, 2007 (1) TAC 233 (Ker). IN the aforesaid judgment the maintainability of the appeal was under challenge, which was opposed on the ground that the insurer was not entitled to file an appeal disputing involvement of the vehicle, since the Tribunal did not grant permission to appellant under Section 170 of the Act. The Court in the aforesaid circumstances considered the scope of Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act for grant of permission to contest the case on all grounds available to the owner of the insured vehicle. The Court considered as to whether the Tribunal would without disposing of the application allow the insurer to cross-examine the claimant and thereafter pass the award directing the insurer to pay compensation whether it was permissible for insurer to challenge the award on merits in appeal on grounds other than those which are specified in section 149 (2) of the Act, in absence of the specific order by the Tribunal under Section 170 of the Act granting permission? It appears that Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in the case of Oriental Insurance Company (supra) had failed to dispose of the application filed under Section 170 of the Act and it was pleaded that in those circumstances the insurance company did not have any permission to contest the case on all grounds other than those specified in Section 149 (2) of the Act.;