Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1358 (MP)

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunita

2013-11-12

ANIL SHARMA

body2013
JUDGMENT : Anil Sharma, J. 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award dated 9.9.2011 passed in Claim case No. 170/2011 by learned 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hoshangabad (M.P.). Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance company has drawn attention towards the order sheet of the learned Tribunal dated 20.7.2011 which mentions that the application under section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been filed on behalf of the non applicant No. 3/Insurance company which is taken on record but the said application has not been decided by the Tribunal by which Insurance company has prayed for cross examination of the applicants' witnesses on the ground of defence evidence through owner and driver and as the non-applicants No. 1 and 2 have been ex-parte before the Tribunal on the date on which the application was filed. 2. According to Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, The insurer has valuable 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. When there is collusion between claimant and against whom claim is made or person against whom claim is made has failed to contest claim. 3. Various judgments of different High Courts have been cited in this regard but the learned counsel for the appellant has cited a judgment of this Court also passed in the matter of The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Suresh Chand Sankla and Ors., 2008 (2) MPHT 430 , in which it has been held that the Tribunal is not justified in rejecting the application filed under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, therefore, claim case has been remanded back to allow the application under Section 170 of the Act and to allow the appellant/Insurance to defend its case on all grounds which are available to the owner and driver and after recording of evidence, if any, decide the claim petition afresh." 4. Considering the judgment of this Court cited above, without going into the merits of the case and even considering the fact that Insurance Co. was allowed to cross examine the witnesses on all the points and further considering the technical legal flow, the case is remanded back to the Tribunal for deciding the application filed by the Insurance Co. Considering the judgment of this Court cited above, without going into the merits of the case and even considering the fact that Insurance Co. was allowed to cross examine the witnesses on all the points and further considering the technical legal flow, the case is remanded back to the Tribunal for deciding the application filed by the Insurance Co. under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act by affording an opportunity to adduce evidence for cross-examination, if any and adducing further evidence, if any, and then to decide the claim petition afresh. The party shall appear before the learned Claims Tribunal on the date as may be given by the Tribunal. Appeal stands disposed of with the aforesaid.