RAJ MOHINI SETHI Vs. MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed by the petitioner, Mrs. Raj Mohini Sethi, challenging the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Karnal, dated July 28, 1986, whereby an additional issue was framed and the insurance company was allowed to cross-examine the witnesses to be produced by the petitioner who had filed a claim application claiming a sum of Rs. 46,000 as damages caused to her car No. CHE 305 which was involved in an accident with another car No. PBA 9393. In the claim application, apart from National Insurance Company, the owner and driver of car No. PBA 9393, Hukam Chand and Sons and Mohinder Singh, were impleaded as parties.

(2.) THE accident occurred on August 6, 1985, when the petitioner's car No. CHE 305 was being driven by her husband. Car No. PBA 9393 struck against and damaged car No. CHE 305. This accident occurred on account of negligent and rash driving of the said car by Mohinder Singh, driver. In the written statement filed by the owner and driver Of car No. PBA 9393, the accident was admitted. However, it was sought to be explained that in the process of overtaking, the incident occurred per chance and that it was a mere accident. A separate written statement was filed by the insurance company denying the accident. Some issues were framed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. However, from the impugned order, it appears that no issue regarding negligent driving of Mohinder Singh of car No. PBA 9393 was framed. The insurance company filed an application under Section 110c of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Tribunal, inter alia, alleging that the owner and the driver of car No. PBA 9393 had colluded with the petitioner as they admitted the accident in the written statement and thus the insurance company should be allowed to cross-examine the witnesses. A reply to this application was filed on behalf of the present petitioner controverting the allegations. The impugned order was passed by the Tribunal allowing the insurance company to cross-examine the witnesses to be produced by the present petitioner in the case and further framed the following additional issue :

(3.) MR. L. M. Suri, advocate for the petitioner, has contended that the impugned order is against the provisions of Section 96 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act as the insurance company is not entitled to contest the claim application on any ground except those provided under Section 96 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. He referred to certain decisions relating to the provisions of Section 96 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1 need not refer to those decisions or elaborate them for the simple reason that under certain circumstances, the insurance company can be permitted to take up the grounds available to the owner or the driver of the vehicle involved jn the accident as required under Section 110c (2a) of the Motor Vehicles Act which reads as under;