In the present case claim petition No.816 of 2007 had been filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 6, Bareily. In the said proceedings an application had been moved by the petitioner for summoning of documents and another application was also filed under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Both the aforesaid applications have been rejected. At this juncture, present writ petition has been filed.
Pleadings inter se parties have been exchanged, and the writ petition has been taken up for hearing and same is being disposed of with the consent of the parties.
Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended with vehemence that in the present case, record in question clearly establishes that there was collusion in between the claimants and the owner of the vehicle, and as such application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act ought to have been allowed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal instead of proceeding to reject the same by unreasoned laconic order.
Countering the said submissions, learned counsel appearing for the claimants, on the other hand, contended that entire endeavour of the Insurance Company is to delay the matter by all means.
In reference to application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, a Division Bench of this Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Jairani and others, 2009 (1) ADJ, while placing reliance upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 16 of the decision has held as under:
"16. The contest of the claim on merits by the owner must be such as if he is trying to defeat the claim and is making every possible effort to win the case. The contest should be real and merely filing of written statement or leading some oral and documentary evidence or cross examination of some witnesses, would not be sufficient. The tribunal must come to a definite 2 conclusion that the owner of the vehicle is making every possible effort to succeed in getting the claim petition dismissed. Only then the application of the insurance company under Section 170 of the Act can be rejected. In absence of finding by the tribunal about genuineness of contest by the owner supported by cogent reasons the application under Section 170 of the Act filed by the insurance company should not be rejected."
This Court in the case of Ne India Insurance Co. v. Anokhey Lal and others, 2009 (3) ADJ 274 has held as follows:
"27. In view of the legal position stated herein before , there can be no scope for doubt to hold that contest of claim should be genuine and effective and it should not be a mere eye- wash as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In my opinion, mere filing of written statement or examining some witnesses by the owner of the offending vehicle should not be treated to be sufficient for genuine and effective contest of the claim, unless claims tribunal comes to a definite conclusion with cogent reasons therefor in writing in this regard on the basis of materials on records and from the other attending circumstances during the course of inquiry of a claim.
29. Similarly where claims tribunal allowed the insurer to cross examine the witness of claimants and also allowed to adduce the defence evidences on merits, though unconsciously without passing any order upon the application of insurer under Section 170 of the Act as shown in instant case, in such situation it can be assumed that claims tribunal has impliedly allowed the insurer to contest the claim on merits as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner but in my considered opinion that cannot be held to be correct legal position in the wake of clear mandate of Section 170 of the Act, which requires that claims tribunal shall pass formal order in writing with cogent reasons therefor. However, these circumstances are merely illustrative in nature and cannot be held to be exhaustive under which claims tribunal should grant permission to the insurer under Section 170 of the Act to contest the claim on merit. There may be varieties of situations under which the tribunal has to reach a definite conclusion while deciding the application of insurer under Section 170 of the Act, therefore, before rejecting the application of insurer, the claims tribunal has to examine all the relevant and possible aspects of the matter and only then, if it is found that owner is genuinely and effectively contesting the claim, in that situation alone the application of the insurer can be rejected by the claims tribunal with cogent reasons, otherwise since the insurer is ultimately liable to make payment of compensation to the claimants of the motor accident, therefore, the application of insurer should not be lightly rejected without any cogent reasons therefor."
On the parameters as set out, the facts of present are being adverted to.
In the present case, application which has been moved under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act is totally cryptic application and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has rejected the same by contending that the evidence has been led and cross-examination is there. It is true that until and unless 3 application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act moved on behalf of the Insurance Company is allowed, Insurance Company cannot request for summoning of the documents, as has been claimed. However, in the present case, as the order rejecting application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, is laconic order, without giving reasons and without considering the circumstances, which are sought to be raised before this Court, as such the same is not sustainable.
Consequently, present writ petition succeeds and the same is allowed. The order dated 26.03.2009 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, in so far as it directs rejection of application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, is hereby quashed and set aside. Claim of petitioner qua application under Section 170 be reconsidered.
No order as to costs.
29.01.2010 SRY