T. Vaiphei, J.

1. Heard Mr. K. Paul, the learned Counsel for the petitioner insurance company and Mr. K. Khan, the learned Counsel for the claimant-respondent. None appears for the respondent No. 2 despite due service of notice upon him.

2. The legality of the order dated 28.11.2005 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Shillong in M.A.C. No. 32 of 2005 rejecting the application of the petitioner under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act' for short) to contest the claim petition on any grounds available to the owner of the offending vehicle, is called into question in this revision. The facts materials for disposal of this revision lie in a narrow compass. The respondent-claimant filed a claim petition under Section166 of the Act for compensation on the account of the death of his son, who died in a vehicular accident. Both the owner of the offending vehicle and the insurance company were arrayed as the opposite parties in the case, who accordingly contested the case. In the written statement filed by the petitioner, it was specifically pleaded that in the event of any collusion between the claimant and the owner of the vehicle, it reserved its righ