NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. HARGOVIND YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (for brevity 'the company') has invoked the jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution by filing the instant petition for quashing the order dated 24.11.2004 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Faridabad. The Tribunal has declined the prayer of the company for a declaration that there is collusion between the parties to defraud the petitioner. Consequently, the application filed by the company under section 1 70 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity 'the Act') has been dismissed by recording the following short order:

(2.) The claimant-respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have filed a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation for a sum of Rs.10,00,000 against respondent Nos. 5 and 6 who are the driver and owner of the offending vehicle and the company. The claim has arisen on account of the death of one Sushila Devi, wife of Hargovind Yadav, claimant-respondent No. 1 in the vehicular accident on 23.3.2002 at Hodal. The allegations made by the claimants-respondents are that accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of driver respondent No. 5 and the offending car bearing registration No.HR 51-C 8953 in which the deceased Sushila Devi was travelling in the vehicle along with her daughter Renu. Respective written statements by contesting the claim petitions were filed by the driver, respondent No. 5 and the owner, respondent No.6. It has further been asserted that no F.I.R. was lodged with the police with regard to the alleged accident and, therefore, no investigation could have been undertaken. The registration clerk Rajinder Kumar, RW 2, from the Registration Authority Office of Motor Vehicle, Faridabad, is alleged to have stated that the vehicle was registered in the name of Ram Kumar Sharma on 18.6.1998 and the same was subsequently transferred in name of driver-respondent Vikram on 11.3.2002. It has further been asserted that the owner, respondent No. 6, had never been the owner of the said vehicle. On the basis of the aforementioned evidence on record an application under section 170 of the Act was filed by the company alleging that the claim petition have been filed by claimants in collusion with driver, respondent No. 5 and owner, respondent No. 6. The prayer made in the application was to seek permission to take all defences available to the company and contesting the claim petition on merits. As already noticed, the application has been dismissed on 24.11.2004 (Annexure P-1).

(3.) When the petition came up for consideration on 21.2.2005 time was granted to the learned counsel for the petitioner to place copies of the claim petition and written statement on record. The needful has been done by the counsel for the petitioner.