Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 39905 of 2010 Petitioner :- The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Respondent :- M.A.C.T.?A.D.J. Meerut And Others Petitioner Counsel :- A.K. Sinha Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. has approached this court questioning
the validity of the decision dated 19.3.2010 passed by the Motor Accident
Claim Tribunal/Additional District Judge Court No. 7, Meerut in Motor
Accident Claim Petition No. 310 of 2008 proceeding to reject the application
moved on behalf of the insurance company for impleadment of one Arshad.
Brief background of the case as mentioned in the writ petition is that Claim
Petition No. 310 of 2008 was filed before Motor Accident Claim
Tribunal/Additional District Judge Court No. 7, Meerut in respect of the
accident which has taken place on 16.9.2007 wherein claimant has received
injury by Vehicle DL. 5C 6115. In the said claim petition notices were issued
and thereafter, respective parties appeared and entered appearance . Insurance
Company in its turn moved an application 50-G requesting therein that
vehicle in question has been sold by Ravindra Singh to Arshad and sale letter
has been issued and in this background Arshad is necessary party and he
should be impleaded as a party. Said application has been considered and
thereafter Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Additional District Judge Court
No. 7, Meerut on 19.3.2001 has proceeded to reject the aforementioned
application. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed.
Sri. A.K. Sinha, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner contended with
vehemence that in the present case there was sale letter in favour of Arshad
and for proper effective adjudication of the claim petition Arshad was
necessary party and in this background impleadment application ought to
have been allowed instead of proceeding to reject the same, as such writ
petition deserves to be allowed.
After respective arguments have been advanced, undisputed factual position,
which is emerging in the present case is that claim petition has been filed by
the claimant after impleadment as concern Insurance Company and
registered owner of the vehicle in question. Insurance Company till date has
not filed any application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act
contending therein that owner of the vehicle has colluded with claimant and
Insurance Company be permitted to lead the evidence and contest the matter.
Once no such application has been moved by Insurance Company, then in
such a situation claimant in his wisdom has chosen that Insurance Company
and registered owner of the vehicle be impleaded as respondent, then in such
a situation and in this background merely because sale letter has been there in
favour of Arshad and he happens to be driver of the vehicle, it cannot be
termed that he is necessary party in the claim petition. Opinion, which have
been formed in the present case, cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable
view.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on judgment of Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited Versus
Meena Variyal and others reported in 2007(2) T.A.C. 417 (SC). Same will
not at all come to the rescue of the petitioner, inasmuch as there was serious
dispute, as to who was driving the vehicle in question. Here in the fact of the
case, once conscious decision has been taken by Tribunal and Tribunal is of
the view that effective adjudication could be done on the strength of the
parties, which are already on record, then no interference is warranted by this
court.
Consequently, present writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 13.7.2010
T.S.