VEDPAL,J. - (1.) THIS revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the revisionist, New India Assurance Company Ltd. against the order dated 21.9.2006, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge (Special Judge Ayodhya Prakaran), Lucknow in Claim Petition No. 390 of 2003, Rakesh Kumar v. Mr. Khursheed Ahmad and others, whereby application of revisionist herein, moved under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act was rejected.
(2.) THE brief facts relevant for the decision of this revision are that Rakesh Kumar had filed a Claim Petition No. 390 of 2003 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the owner, driver and insurance company of the alleged offending vehicle. The owner of the vehicle filed written statement against the petition but when claimant examined his witness, he did not turned up to cross-examine the witness, therefore, the insurance company moved an application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act alleged that the owner of the vehicle is in collusion with the claimant and has failed to contest the claim, therefore, insurance company be permitted to contest the claim of all the ground which are available to the owner of the vehicle. This application was rejected by the learned court below by the impugned order. Feeling aggrieved by the said order this revision has been filed. During the hearing of this revision none appeared on behalf of the respondents No. 3 and 4 who are the owner and the driver of the alleged offending vehicle. The claimants (respondents No. 1 and 2 herein) only appeared and contested the petition on the ground that the revision is not maintainable as the only remedy available to the aggrieved person is an appeal under Section 175 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the final award passed by the Tribunal. He further contended that there was no collusion between the owner of the alleged offending vehicle and the claimant, therefore, the learned court below was perfectly within his power to reject the application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the impugned order does not suffer from any error, illegality or irregularity and as such the revision deserve rejection.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record of the case.;