Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
United India Insurance Company Limited vs Gorla Bondamma And Ors. on 21 June, 2006
Equivalent citations: I(2007)ACC235, 2007ACJ797, 2006(5)ALD158
ORDER C.Y. Somayajulu, J.
1. The Tribunal dismissed the petition of the revision-petitioner/insurer filed under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act), on the ground that the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident had filed his counter and cross-examined P.Ws.
2. The contention of the learned Counsel for revision-petitioner is that since the owner did not effectively cross-examine the witnesses and has not taken the steps, which he ought to have taken, for effectively defending the claim, revision petitioner is entitled to contest the O.P. on all the grounds open to the owner. The contention of the learned Counsel for respondents 1 to 4, who are claimants in the O.P., is that since the affidavit filed in support of the insurance company was signed by its officer long prior to the filing of the counter and since the owner is contesting the O.P. the order of the Tribunal refusing to grant permission to the revision petitioner to contest the O.P. on all the grounds open to the owner it is unassailable.
3. The specific averment in Para-4 of the affidavit filed in support of the application before the Tribunal is that the insured is not contesting the O.P. effectively and seriously before the Tribunal and so it may be granted permission to contest the O.P. on all grounds. It is well known that if there is collusion between the claimants and the owner, the insurer can seek permission to contest the claim on all the grounds open to the owner. In fact, the claimants have no say in a petition filed under Section 170 of the Act. The Tribunal in exercise of its judicial discretion has to decide whether or not to grant permission to the insurer under Section 170 of the Act.
4. Claimants opposing the application filed under Section 170 of the Act, prima facie, is a ground to presume that there is a collusion between the insured and the claimants. Therefore, insurer must be granted permission to contest the claim on all the grounds.
5. Officer of the insurance company signing the affidavit long prior to the filing of the counter cannot be viewed with suspicion because unless the Court grants permission question of the insurer taking the pleas that are open to the insured does not arise. In the above circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal was in error in dismissing the application filed by the insurer.
6. Hence, the revision petition is allowed and consequently the I.A. No. 822 of 2005 in O.P.No. 2138 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, stands allowed. No costs.