AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Tarun Agarwala, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner is the insurance company and had filed an application in terms of Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 praying that they may be permitted to contest the matter on merits. The ground urged in their application is that the owner of the vehicle was not cooperating with the insurance company and that the owner was not properly contesting the matter. The application was rejected by the tribunal on the ground that the examination of the witnesses was being conducted. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, has filed the present writ petition.
The claimants are also before this Court.
The Court finds that from a plain reading of Section 170 of the said Act, it is clear that certain conditions are required to be satisfied before invoking the said provision, namely, that there is a collusion between the claimant and the owner of the offending vehicle and that the person against whom the application is sought to be made is not contesting the claim, in which case the tribunal, if it is satisfied may record the reasons and direct the insurer, namely, the insurance company to be impleaded as a necessary party.
In the instant case, the Court finds that the insurance company has made a vague application and has not indicated any cogent reasons for allowing itself to contest the matter on merits. Consequently, even though the tribunal has not recorded any cogent reasons, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned order.
The writ petition fails and is dismissed.