BHAWANI SINGH, C. J.

( 1 ) WE propose to dispose of this group of 21 appeals (First Appeal Nos. 2648 to 2668 of 2003) by this judgment since they arise out of common award and the same accident. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

( 2 ) THE claim petitions arise out of motor accident which occurred on April 15, 2000 with Tanker containing Naphta liquid (highly inflammable material) bearing registration No. GJ-5-V-4845 overturned at about 1. 15 a. m. near Vakatana village. Naphta started spilling on the road and caught fire and resulted in fatal injuries to 15 persons and grievous injuries to others. Claims are at the instance of either heirs of deceased or those sufferrd personal injuries. Ashokkumar Vijaykumar Yadav (driver) was deleted while owner of vehicle did not file written statement nor examined witnesses nor contested the claim. The appellant filed application under section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Act) for permission to contest the claim on merits. However, this application was rejected.

( 3 ) THE appellant opposed the claims on the ground that the accident was not caused due to the use of the motor vehicle; it was caused due to fire to Naphta by lighting of match-stick and the injuries suffered by the injured/deceased cannot be construed having been caused by use of motor vehicle. Further, the claimants were not covered by the policy in question. Therefore, the appellant is not liable to satisfy the award. On the pleadings of the parties, Claims Tribunal framed four issues. Parties led evidence thereon. Ultimately, Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident took place as alleged, therefore, the claimants were entitled to compensation awarded in respective cases with interest at the rate of 9 per cent from the date of application till realisation.

( 4 ) BEING aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the award, the appellant challenges the same through these appeals. The first submission advanced by Shri A. R. Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant is that the Claims Tribunal rejected the application of the appellant under section 170 of the Act erroneously. Precisely, submission is that when the insured had not filed written statement nor examined witnesses and contested the claim, case of collusion between the claimants and the insured was made out, therefore, the Claims Tribunal ought to have allowed the application. Shri Mehta in support of this submission places reliance on a decision of the Apex court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. , Chandigarh v. Nicolletta Rohtagi and others, (2002) 7 SCC 456. In para 31 of the judgment, the Apex Court held that :"31. WE have already held that unless the conditions precedent specified in Section 170 of the 1988 Act are satisfied, an insurance company has no right of appeal to challenge the award on merits. However, in a situation where there is a collusion between the claimants and the insured or the insured does not contest the claim and, further the Tribunal does not implead the insurance company to contest the claim, in such cases it is open to an insurer to seek permission of the Tribunal to contest the claim on the ground available to the insured or to a person against whom a claim has been made. If permission is granted and insurer is allowed to contest the claim on merits, in that case it is open to the insurer to file an appeal against an award on merits, if aggrieved. In any case where an application for permission is erroneously rejected, the insurer can challenge only that part of the order while filing appeal on grounds specified in sub-section (2) of section 149 of the 1988 Act. But such application for permission has to be bona fide and filed at the stage when the insured is required to lead his evidence. So far as obtaining compensation by fraud by the claimant is concerned, it is no longer res integra that fraud vitiates the entire proceeding and in such cases it is open to an insurer to apply to the Tribu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document