SHARMA, J. - (1.) INITIALLY claimant impleaded petitioner insurance company as respondent in the claim petition but from subsequently on the oral request of claimant's counsel the name of the petitioner company was deleted. An award thereafter came to be passed against the vehicle owner and the driver. The claimant sought execution of the award by filing execution petition. In the execution proceedings the vehicle owner made an application under Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (for short the M.V. Act) to declare the petitioner insurance company as judgment debtor. Learned tribunal allowed the application vide order dated March 8, 2000 declaring the petitioner Company liable as judgment debtor. Against this order of the tribunal that the petitioner company has filed the instant writ petition.
(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner company canvassed that the insurer cannot be saddled with the liability of claim granted by the Tribunal, where the insurer was not impleaded as a party. It was further contended that the claims Tribunal had no jurisdiction to modify the award after it was pronounced. Reliance was placed on Gurdial Chand Bhasin v. Anil Kumar (1) and New India Assurance Co. v. Jamuna Devi (2). Per contra learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order and placed reliance on Urmila Pandey v. Khalil Ahmed (3) and Sheodev Prasad Tiwari v. District Judge (4).
(3.) I have pondered over the rival submissions and scanned the record.;