This revision has been preferred against the order dated 29.10.1987, passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Lucknow) in claim petition No. 42 of 1999, by which the learned Tribunal has rejected the application paper No. 33-C moved by the Revisionist-Insurance Company to contest the case under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
I have heard both the parties and have gone through the records.
Brief facts of the case are that in claim petition No. 42 of 1999, the Insurance Company moved application paper No. 33-C on the ground that the alleged owner of the Vehicle, in question has died long ago and the legal heirs of the deceased have no interest and, as such, are not contesting the case seriously and there is every likelihood of their being in collusion with the claimants, which shall cause financial and other losses to the Insurance Company. The Learned Tribunal rejected the application on the ground that the legal representatives are contesting the case in a good way and, as such, there is no base of collusion. The reasons given by the learned Tribunal are perverse. The provisions contained in Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are reproduced as below:-
The word "satisfied" as used in the section above means simple satisfaction not proved, which denotes fulfillment of needs, desires or expectations of someone. It does not mean proof.
In United India Insurance Company v. Shila Dutta, in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has held, which is as under;-
"Therefore, where the insurer is a party-respondent, either on account of being impleaded as a party by the tribunal under section 170 or being impleaded as a party-respondent by the claimants in the claim petition voluntarily, it will be entitled to contest the matter by raising all grounds, without being restricted to the grounds available under section 149 (2) of the Act. The claim petition is maintainable against the owner and driver without impleading the insurer as a party. When a statutory notice is issued under section 149 (2) by the tribunal, it is clear that such notice is issued not to claim has been made in regard to a policy issued by it and that it will have to bear the liability as and when an award is made in regard to such claim. Therefore, it cannot, as of right, require that it should be impleaded as a party-respondent. But it can however be made a party-respondent either by the claimants voluntarily in the claim petition or by the direction of the Tribunal under section 170 of the Act. Whatever be the reason or ground for the insurer being impleaded as a party, once it is a part-respondent, it can implead the insurer as a party-respondent but merely to put it on notice that a raise all contentions that are available to resist the claim."
In view of the law has laid down as reproduced above and in view of the circumstances of the case, the Insurance company must have been allowed to contest the case under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Learned counsel for the opposite party placed reliance on two authorities, namely, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Division Office 1st through Divisional Manager, Lucknow v. Kanchan Pandey and Others [2009 (2) TAC (Allahabad)] & Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. through Divisional Manager, Meerut v. Smt. Manju and Others. [2007 (3) TAC 456 (Allahabad)].
But these authorities do not help the revisionist as the matter has already been settled by a full Bench of this Court in Kamla Yadav v. Sushma Devi [2004 (22) LCD 40], that a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is a Court subordinate to the High Court and, revision under Section 115 C.P.C. is maintainable. Orders passed by the Tribunal will be amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court.
Since the learned Tribunal has decided the lis and ousted the Insurance Company to contest the case. Finality can be attached to the impugned order. Hence, the revision is accordingly allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the case is remitted back to the learned Tribunal with a direction to allow the application of the Insurance Company moved under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and proceed with the case as expeditiously as possible.
Order Date :- 30.11.2012 Nitesh