( 1 ) IN view of the alleged two divergent decisions in C. M. A. No. 588 of 1992 dated 28. 7. 1999 and c. M. A. No. 448 of 1991 dated 7. 6. 2000, the following questions are referred by the learned single Judge for a decision from the Division Bench: (1) What is the effect of the non-presence of the owner of a motor vehicle (insured) at the appellate stage, if the appeal against the owner is dismissed for default for non-payment of batta or for non-compliance with the orders of the court? (2) If the Tribunal records a finding that the accident had taken place due to rash or negligent driving of the motor vehicle by its driver and if such a find ing is not challenged by the insurance company in the appeal, whether there is any need for the presence of the owner of the motor vehicle? (3) In an appeal filed by the insurance company, if the owner of the motor vehicle is not present (i. e. , if the appeal as against the owner is dismissed), what is the effect of the same on the said appeal? (4) In an appeal filed by the claimant, if the insurance company has not filed any cross-appeal, what is the need for the presence of the owner of the motor vehicle?

( 2 ) THE C. M. A. No. 588 of 1992 dated 28. 7. 1999 was dismissed by our learned brother E. Dharma Rao, J. on the ground that as the appeal was dismissed against the owner of the lorry which was involved in the accident and the claim against the insurer cannot be decided in the absence of the insured and as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunita Rathi, 1998 ACJ 121 (SC), the liability of the insurer arises only when the liability of the insured is upheld for the purpose of indemnifying the insured under the contract of insurance.

( 3 ) THE other C. M. A. No. 448 of 1991 was allowed by our learned brother Ghu-lam Mohammed, J. on 7. 6. 2000 holding that as per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of A. Robert v. United India insurance Co. Ltd. , 2000 ACJ 252 (SC), even if the appeal was dismissed against owner of the motor vehicle (insured), the question of statutory liability of the insurance company survives in the absence of service of notice on the insured.

( 4 ) IN all these appeals, the Tribunals held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the drivers of the vehicles and the claimants were entitled for the compensation. Before the Tribunals, notices were served on the vehicle owners as well as on the insurance company and the owners of the vehicles contested the o. Ps. and on contest, the Tribunals held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the drivers of the vehicles. The said finding of the Tribunals has become final as neither the insurance company nor the owners of the vehicles have filed any appeals. All these appeals have been filed by the claimants alone with regard to the disputed quantum of compensation. Notices could not be served on the owners of the vehicles or on the legal representatives of the owners and the appeals stood dismissed against the owners of the motor vehicles (insured ).

( 5 ) UNDER section 166 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 ( the Act for brevity), the claimants whether injured, owners of the property or legal heirs of the deceased, arising out of an accident shall have to file an application before the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal and on such application for compensation made under section 166 of the Act, the Tribunal, after giving notice of the application to the insurer as well as the insured, shall make an award determining the amount of compensation under section 168 of the Act specifying the amount which shall be paid by the insurer or owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident or by or any of them as the case may be.

( 6 ) AS per section 170 of the Act, where in the course of an inquiry, the Claims tribunal is satisfied that there is collusion between the person making the claim and the person against whom the claim i