The court emphasized that the decision on which vehicle was involved in the accident should be based on the evidence led by the parties, and there are no provisions of law to compel a specific set of respondents to lead evidence first.

Hemant Gupta, J.

1. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, on 3.8.2005, whereby the petitioner-Insurance Company was directed to deposit the process fee, after rejecting the contention of the petitioner that the evidence should be led by the other set of owner and driver of the vehicle first.

2. As per the case of the petitioner, the accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing Registration No. HR-16-A-844, whereas the claimants have reflected the accident with another vehicle bearing registration No. DL-3-C-0155 insured by the petitioner. The petitioner has been permitted to take over the defence of the owner in terms of Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that since the accident has taken place with Vehicle bearing Registration No. HR-16-A-844, therefore, the owner and driver of the said vehicle have to lead evidence first, whereas the Insurance Company of another vehicle has been called upon to lead evidence.

4. The learned Tribunal has found that the question as to which of the vehicles, was involved in accident, is required to be decided on the basis of evidence led by the parties. It is wholly immaterial that which of the set of the respondents are to produce evidence first. The Court is to decide the matter on the basis of the entire evidence.

5. Therefore, I do not find that any case is made out for interference at the instance of the petitioner-Insurance Company for compelling the driver and the owner of the vehicle HR-16-A- 844 to lead evidence first. No provisions of law could be pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner to show that the owner and the driver of the said vehicle can be compelled to lead evidence in the first instance.

6. In view of the above, I do not find any material illegality or irregularity in the the impugned order warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court.Hence, the present revision petition is dismissed.