ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. KRISHAN CHAND SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal at the instance of Insurance Company is directed against the award passed by motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu in File No. 480/ - claims dated 24th November, 1997. By means of impugned award a total sum of Rs. 2,44,000/ - together with interest @ 12% on the amount, except on Rs. 60,000/ - (awarded on account of future loss of income) has been passed in favour of respondent no. 1 and against the appellant. In order to properly appreciate the contention urged on behalf of the appellant, brief facts giving rise to this appeal need to be noticed.

(2.) ON 17th September, 1996 petitioner was going on his Scooter bearing registration No: JKD 2C -119 from Trikuta Nagar toward Jammu City. When he reached near Panama Chowk, a track bearing registration No. JKQ -7453 came from behind being driven in a rash and negligent manner by Sewa Singh respondent No. 1 hit the scooter of petitioner resulting in accident causing injuries to respondent No. 1 in his left leg. After accident petitioner was taken to Gandhi Nagar Hospital and thereafter was referred to Government Medical College, Jammu. This claim of respondent No. 1 came to be contested by the appellant as well as by respondents 2 and 3, driver and owner respectively of offending truck in question. It appears that Tribunal below held that the vehicle in question was being driven in rash and negligent manner by respondent No.2 which resulted in causing accident in question. Even otherwise when a reference is made to the oral as well as documentary evidence on record including that of Doctor P.K. Bhan, it is clear that respondent No.1 sustained fracture on upper part of his left femur with a wound. This doctor had referred respondent No. 1 to Government Medical College, Jammu, where also he was attended to by the witness and finally the witness advised respondent No. 1 to get treatment at Amritsar. It appears that respondents 1 and 2 i.e. diver and owner did not lead any evidence and rightly so in the case of crypts and telegraphic objections filed by them to the claim petition.

(3.) IN the aforesaid background appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company. Sh Gupta, learned counsel appealing for the appellant need an attempt to persuade the court to permit his client to contest the case on available grounds keeping in view the non -contest of the case by the respondents 2 and 3 after having filed their objections to the claim petition and their after having not appeared in the witness box. While buttressing is this submission further, Sh Gupta pointed out with reference to file of Tribunal below that since appellant was permitted to cross -examine the witnesses of claimant, therefore, necessary permission is deemed to have been granted within the meaning of Section of 170 of Motor Vehicles Act. Argument prima -facie seems to be impressive as well as attractive. Here a reference to Section 170 of Motor Vehicles Act (supra) can be of useful assistance, which is reproduced hereinbelow: 170. Impleading insurer in certain cases. Where in the case course of any inquiry, the claimant 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.