- (1.) ALTHOUGH the matter is listed for ascertaining service of notice on respondent Nos.2, 3 and 5, however, on examining the matter in its entirety, this Court feels that service of notice on the unserved respondents is not necessary for adjudicating the lis involved in the matter. Therefore, service of notice on the unserved respondents is dispensed with. With the consent of the rival parties, matter is heard finally at this stage.
(2.) THE petitioner -Insurance Company has laid this writ petition imploring annulment of order dated 27th April, 2012 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shahpura (for short, 'the learned Tribunal') in Case No.268/2010, whereby the application of the petitioner - Insurance Company, for its deletion from the array of non - claimants in the claim petition, was dismissed. The facts in brevity, giving rise to this writ petition, are that respondent No.3, claimant, filed a claim under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the petitioner -insurer, owner of the vehicle and the driver, which was involved in the accident. The Insurance Company was impleaded as party to the claim petition with the averment that on the fateful day, when the accident occurred, disputed bike, i.e., Motorcycle No.RJ -06 -SS -1208 was insured with the petitioner -Insurance Company. After issuance of notice, the Insurance Company submitted an application for deletion of its name on the ground that although the cover note for insurance was issued for the vehicle in question on tendering the requisite cheque of premium by the first respondent, but subsequently the cheque tendered by the first respondent was dishonored due to paucity of funds in his account, and therefore, contract of insurance was not completed. It is also averred in the application that when the cheque tendered by the owner of the vehicle was dishonored, the Insurance Company rescinded the contract of insurance on 7th December, 2007 and intimation to this effect was also divulged to the owner. It is also stated in the application that the accident for which claim is laid has occurred six months after the cancellation of the insurance. The learned Tribunal after considering the application by the order impugned has dismissed the application of the Insurance Company and concluded in the impugned order that after issuance of cover note, the vehicle stands insured, and therefore, the liability of the Insurance Company to pay compensation is joint and several.
(3.) MR . Mukul Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that although the cheque was tendered by the owner of vehicle, but the same has not been encashed, and therefore, the contract of insurance has not been completed. Thus, he submits that the order impugned is contrary to law and cannot be sustained. Mr. Mukul Singhvi has also urged that the learned Tribunal has not taken note of a very vital fact that the Insurance Company has already cancelled the insurance six months prior to the occurrence of the accident, and therefore, the impugned order is vitiated and cannot be sustained.;