ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. USHA GOEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. P. No. 397/2007 in C. R. P. No. 764/2003 the Civil Revision Petition was filed by the Oriental Insurance Company in the year 2003 raising a challenge to an order dated 23. 04. 2003 dismissing the application filed by the company under Section 170 of the M. V. Act, 1988, inter alia, alleging that neither the owner nor the driver of the offending vehicle had appeared to contest the proceedings evidenced by the fact that none had bothered to enter appearance before the Learned Judge MACT, and that from such conduct, the Insurance Company apprehends a probable collusion between the claimants and the owner/driver. It was thus prayed that the Insurance Company may be permitted to contest the claim petition on the grounds which in law are available to the owner of the vehicle.

(2.) THE said application was dismissed by the learned Tribunal vide impugned order dated 23. 04. 2003.

(3.) THE contention urged by the Insurance Company in the Civil Revision petition is that Section 170 of the M. V. Act, 1988 has two components. Clause (a) is the first component and Clause (b) is the second component. It was urged that both Clauses are independent of each other and if it is shown that the owner/driver has failed to contest the claim, the Insurance Company can seek a right to be granted the opportunity to urge grounds that are available to the owner/driver of the offending vehicle as per the mandate of Clause (b ). The reason why the Insurance Company had to so urge is the fact that vide order dated 23. 04. 2003, the Learned Judge, MACT has read Clause (a) and (b) of Section 170 as conjunctive and not disjunctive i. e. has held that the element of collusion has to be read in Clause (b) as well.