NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. ANGURI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by National Insurance Co. Ltd. under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 13.7.1999 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Solan, in M.A.C. Petition No. 66-S/2 of 1996. As this appeal was taken up for consideration and hearing Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the insurer appellant, when confronted with the difficulty coming in the way of the appellant about the maintainability of this appeal, looking to the limited nature of defences available to the appellant insurer, under section 149 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, read with section 173 submitted that the appellant had filed an application under section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Tribunal with a prayer that the appellant be permitted to contest the claim petition on all the grounds since, as per the averments contained in this application, the appellant was not informed by the owner insured of the vehicle in question about the occurrence of the accident, if at all it took place and that the appellant apprehended that there might be a collusion between the claimants and the owners of the vehicle in question. According to Mr. Sharma even though this application had been filed by the appellant before the Tribunal during the pendency of the proceedings of the case, the Tribunal did not pass any order on this application, one way or the other. I have seen various orders passed by the Tribunal in this case and indeed agree with Mr. Sharma's contention that this application never came up for consideration before the Tribunal and the Tribunal did not pass any order on this application, rejecting or allowing the same.

(2.) I have also seen that the body of the judgment/award passed by the Tribunal on the very face of it is suggestive of the fact that the owner-insured did not contest the claim petition because presence of any one on behalf of owner-insured has not been recorded in the body of the judgment of the Tribunal. Mr. Ravinder Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the respondents- claimants, Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, the learned counsel appearing for drivers-respondents and Mr. Y. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the owner-respondent, all of them do not object to the grant of the permission to the appellant insurance company in terms of section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act by me in this appeal. Even otherwise, I am convinced that in the facts and circumstances of this case the interests of justice were not properly served in the Tribunal not deciding the application filed by the appellant under section 170 of the Act.

(3.) Mr. Sharma drew my attention to the following observations of their Lordships of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nicolletta Rohtagi, 2002 ACJ 1950 (SC) and I quote: