JUDGMENT
H.K. Sema, J.
1. This revision petition arises out of M.A.C. No. 10 (K) of 1999.
2. We have heard Mr. B.N. Sarma, the learned Counsel for the revisionist as well as Mr. A. Roy, learned Counsel for the respondents/opposite parties.
3. This revision petition has been filed by the insurance company against order dated 26.3.1999 passed by the learned Tribunal in M.A.C. No. 55 of 1996 thereby rejecting the application filed by the insurance company under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. According to the learned Tribunal, since the opposite party was represented by one Mr. P.B. Paul, the application filed by the insurance company was not maintainable.
4. A specific averment has been made by the revisionist in para 3 of the petition that Mr. P.B. Paul, Advocate appeared on behalf of the owner of the vehicle only on 14.12.1998 and the Counsel neither cross-examined the witnesses produced by the claimant nor filed any written statement. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the opposite party has contested the claim effectively.
5. Section 170 of Motor Vehicles Act allow impleading of insurance company under certain exceptional circumstances. It reads:
Impleading insurer in certain cases.-
Where in the course of any inquiry, the Claims Tribunal is satisfied that-
(a) there is collusion between the person making the claim and the person against whom the claim is made, or
(b) the person against whom the claim is made has failed to contest the claim, it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, direct that the insurer who may be liable in respect of such claim, shall be impleaded as a party to the proceeding and the insurer so impleaded shall thereupon have, without prejudice to the provisions contained in Sub-section (2) of Section 149, the 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.
6. In the instant case, since the Counsel appearing for the opposite party neither filed written statement nor cross-examined the witnesses put up by the claimant, there is likelihood of being a collusion between the person making the claim and the person against whom the claim is made. It is to take care of such a situation that Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act is inserted. Unfortunately, the learned Tribunal has failed to consider this aspect of the matter and rejected the application filed by the insurance company. In the instant case, since the Counsel appearing for the opposite party has neither filed a written statement nor cross-examined the witnesses put up by the claimant, it cannot be said that the opposite party has effectively contested the claim made by the claimant. In such a situation on perusal of the record and the materials available, the learned Tribunal ought to have allowed the application of the insurance company to implead them as party respondent in the claim petition.
7. In the result, the order dated 26.3.99 passed by the learned Tribunal is hereby set aside and quashed. This revision petition is accordingly allowed.