JUDGMENT Hon’ble Amitava Lala, J.—The application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called as the ‘Act’) has been rejected. The appeal has not been preferred in connection with any violation of Section 149(2) of the Act so that it can be entertained independently at the instance of the insurance company. 2. The only dispute is with regard to presence of eye-witness. It is a question of fact which has been thoroughly considered by the tribunal and came to a finding, therefore, we do not propose to interfere with such judgment and award passed by the tribunal. 3. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. 4. No order is passed as to costs. 5. The statutory deposit of Rs. 25,000/- made before this Court under this appeal be remitted back to the concerned tribunal as prayed for by the Insurance Company so that the amount can be adjusted with the claim of the claimant/s. 6. From our experience in this jurisdiction, we find that in most of the cases one line order is being passed by the learned Judges of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal accepting or rejecting the application under Section 170 of the Act without giving any reason. It has been observed by the Supreme Court in 2003 (7) SCC 212 , United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jyotsnaben Sudhirbhai Patel, that there is a mandate in such Section to give minimum possible reason/s to accept or reject such application. 7. Therefore, Registrar General is directed to circulate a copy of this order to all the District Courts with a specific direction to comply with the requirement of Section 170 of the Act. 8. Registrar General will also issue notice upon the Stamp Reporter to verify whether any column has been made by the appellants at the time of preferring the appeal giving indication of rejection or allowing the same with reasons. It will also be notified that in case any such information is not given, the Stamp Reporter will be entitled to record the case as ‘defective’. 9. Let a copy of this order be given to the Registrar General immediately for all practical purposes. Honble Shishir Kumar, J.—I agree. ————