NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. JASWINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. has filed this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), questioning Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu's award of 25.1.1995, directing it to pay an amount of Rs. 10,25,400 to the claimant Jaswinder Singh, respondent, as compensation for the injuries he had received in a motor accident while driving his scooter which had been hit by a rashly and negligently driven truck bearing registration No. JKQ 6515 by its driver Gurnam Singh.

(2.) Appellant's learned counsel submits that the Tribunal had denied fair hearing to the appellant to contest respondent No. 1's claim petition, in that, despite its having done all that it was required to do to secure the presence of its witnesses, the Tribunal had arbitrarily closed its evidence thereby depriving it of its right to defend the respondent No. 1's claim against the appellant insurance company.

(3.) Appellant had filed an application seeking permission to defend respondent No. 1's claim petition, on grounds other than those available to an insurer under section 149 (2) (a) of the Act because the owner of the vehicle had opted not to contest respondent No. 1 's claim. Although no objections had been filed by the claimant to appellant's application despite having been allowed opportunity to do so, yet the Tribunal had not passed any orders on it. Learned counsel says that appellant had sought disposal of its application seeking permission to defend respondent No. 1's claim petition by moving yet another application seeking, inter alia, inquiry as to how objections on behalf of Narinder Singh, owner of the vehicle, had been filed before the Tribunal when he had died on 24.3.95, i.e., before the filing of the claim petition. Neither any inquiry is stated to have been held by the Tribunal in the matter nor had it passed any orders on appellant's application seeking permission under section 170 of the Act. Appellant's learned counsel, therefore, seeks setting aside of the impugned award with permission to the appellant insurance company to contest respondent No. 1's claim on merits.