ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. SUMITRA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Ashok Priyadarshi, counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, counsel for the opposite parties nos. 1 to 9 as also Mr. Kamlendra Prasad Singh, counsel for the opposite parties nos. 10 & 11.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner - Insurance Company as with regard to the impugned order dated 28.4.2006 seems to be wholly misconceived. All that has been done by the impugned order is that the application filed by the petitioner -company seeking leave of the court to contest the compensation case has been held to be premature. The Court below has given sound reasons for it and has recorded that since the evidence of the applicant had not begun nor the opposite parties nos. 10 & 11 being the owner and driver of the vehicle, had taken any stand which would show that they are in collusion of the claimants, opposite parties nos. 1 to 9, the stage for allowing permission to contest the compensation case for the Insurance Company had not yet arrived. Mr. Priyadarshi however, in order to support his case would submit that since the Court below, the Motor Vehicles Claim Tribunal has rejected the application seeking leave under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it had no option but to file this civil revision application because the case of the Insurance Company of contesting the compensation case was lost for once and all. Counsel for the opposite parties would however point out that the very expression used by the Court that the application filed by the Insurance Company was premature was itself indicative of the fact that the Insurance Company always had the liberty to seek leave at a proper stage once it was in a position to satisfy that either of the two requirements under Section 170 was fulfilled.

(3.) THIS Court would first of all find that impleading Insurance Company (insurer) in all the claim cases arising out of accident under Vehicle Act is not a condition precedent. The intention of legislature for allowing the impleadment of Insurance Company is confined only in two specified situations namely collusion of claimant with the person against whom claim is lodged or absence of contest by the person against whom claim is lodged. This would be clear from the provision of Section 170(a) and (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act itself which reads as follows: - "170. Impleading insurer in certain cases. -Where in the course of any inquiry, the Claims Tribunal is satisfied that - (a) there is collusion between the person making the claim and the person against whom the claim is made. or (b) the person against whom the claim is made has failed to contest the claim. It may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, direct that the insurer who may be liable in respect of such claim. shall be impleaded as a party to the proceeding and the insurer so impleaded shall thereupon have, without prejudice to the provisions contained in sub - section (2) of Section 149, the right to contest the claim on all or any of the grounds that are available to the person against whom the claim has been made."(underlining by me for emphasis)