M. F. SALDANHA, J.

( 1 ) WE have heard the learned counsel in both these appeals or rather in the M. F. A. filed by the insurance company and the owner and the cross- objections filed by the original claimants which have been separately numbered as the companion M. F. A. A very interesting, rather unusual but important aspect of the law has been thrown up before us which we shall summarise. The owner, though served before the Tribunal did not appear nor did he contest and he was placed ex parte. The insurance company has contested the claims on merits and being aggrieved by the order passed by the Claims tribunal, the insurance company and the owner have filed M. F. A. No. 2469 of 1995. It is not as though the owner is not a party as often happens, but in this instance the owner is a co-appellant. We need to also clarify that despite the owner not having contested before the Claims Tribunal that the insurer was permitted by the Tribunal to cross-examine and to contest on merits. The respondents' learned counsel brings it to our notice that no leave had been applied for under section 170 [section 110 (2-A)] of the Motor Vehicles Act, nor had it been granted and that this formality w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document