✦ Punjab & Haryana High Court · 10 Jul 2009

Savita Rani & Ors. v. Munna Lal & Ors.

C.R No. 3150 of 2009HEMANT GUPTA

Case at a glance

Decided
10 Jul 2009
Bench
HEMANT GUPTA

Provisions considered

Judgment

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. R.S.Mamli, Advocate, for the petitioners. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal on 20.4.2009, whereby an application filed by the Insurance Company to take over the defence of owner and the driver in terms of Section 170 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, was allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the Tribunal has allowed the application without given any reason, which may reflect collusion between the owner and the claimants. Even, the Insurance company has not pleaded that the owner and claimants have colluded in its application. It is further argued that claimants have examined 9 witnesses, which have been cross-examined by the counsel representing owner and the driver as well. It shows that there is no collusion between owner and the claimants. The Insurance Company has sought to take over defence inter alia on the ground that during investigation conducted by the Insurance C.R.No.3150 of 2009 2 Company, it was found that the accident was not caused by the insured vehicle and that there are chances of collusion between the petitioners and owner/driver of the alleged vehicle. The said fact has taken into consideration by the learned rial Court, while permitting Insurance Company to take over the defence. The taking over of defence of the owner does not affect the rights of the claimants, but operates against the interest of the owner, who is not aggrieved of the order passed. In view of the said fact, I do not find any merit in the grievance raised by the petitioners in the present revision petition. Dismissed.

10.07.2009 Vimal (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE

Questions this judgment answers

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s. 170.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 10 Jul 2009. The bench was HEMANT GUPTA.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Punjab & Haryana High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. C.R No. 3150 of 2009). ← Search more judgments