1. This revision is at the instance of the insurance company, which is impleaded as respondent No.3 in M.V.O.P.No.113 of 2005 on the file of District Judge, Krishna District. While the said O.P. was under trial P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined. PW.1 was examined on 04.07.2007. The petitioner/respondent No.3 in the O.P. filed the application I.A.No.690 of 2007 seeking leave of the Court under Section 178 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (for short, ‘the Act’) to contest the claim petition. The said application was opposed by the claimants and has been dismissed under the impugned order. Hence, this revision.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.V.L.N.Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the claimants.

3. The petitioner’s counsel contends that according to the petitioner the claimants as well as respondent Nos.1 and 2 are in collusion with each other and the circumstances relied upon in support of the said contention is that the deceased as well as respondent No.2 are working as colleagues in State Bank of India and only to help the claimants, the 2nd respondent has accepted that his scooter was involved in the accident. The petitioner relied upon the circumstances that Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report alleging accident between the two vehicles i.e., one of deceased and that of respondent No.2 is however not established from the said Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report. The petitioner also placed reliance upon the circumstances that PW.1 was examined on 04.07.2007 and admitted his involvement in the accident and the 2nd respondent supported PW.1 by adopting the cross examination of RW.1 contrary to R.2’s averments in his counter. The learned counsel placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in United India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office v. Gorla Bondamma and others [1] in support of his contention that the fact that the claimants are contesting the present application gives rise to a presumption that there is collusion between claimants and respondent Nos.1 and 2. He also submits that under Section 170 of the Act, the Court shall exercise discretion to implead and permit the insurance company to contest the claim, if the insurance company establishes that there is absolute collusion between the person making the claim and the person against whom the claim is made or when the person against whom the claim is made fails to contest the claim. The learned counsel therefore states that the present case the insurance company has vital interest in contesting the claim and they have made out ingredients enumerated under Section 178 of the Act.

4. Sri V.V.L.N.Sarma, learned counsel for the respondents submits that though respondent No.3 is impleaded in the O.P., this application is made only on 05.07.2007, after cross examination of PW.1. He submits that thereafter, PWs.2 and 3 were also examined on 12.07.2007 and submits that there is absolutely no ground to contend that there is any collusion between the claimants and respondent Nos.1 and 2, inasmuch as the said respondents have filed counter and are contesting the case. They have not cross examined PW.1 and since it is not necessary to repeat the same questions put on behalf of the respondent No.1, respondent No.2 is adopted the same cross examination. Learned counsel therefore submits that at this distance of the time, it would be highly unjustified to permit such application of the petitioner.

5. Having considered the aforesaid contention, I have also examined the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of Section 170 of the Act. The learned counsel for the respondents has placed before this Court the affidavit in lieu of chief examination filed by PW.1 and the cross examination of PW.1 dated 04.07.2007. It is true that respondent No.2 has adopted the cross examination by respondent No.1. It also shows that respondent No.3 had requested the Court that new facts would come to light and the insurance co