The main legal point established is that the insurance company should be permitted to contest a claim on all available grounds if the owner of the vehicle has not genuinely contested the claim.

Ved Pal, J.

This revision u/s 115 of the CPC has been filed by the revisionist, New India Assurance Company Ltd. against the order dated 21.9.2006, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge (Special Judge Ayodhya Prakaran), Lucknow in Claim Petition No. 390 of 2003, Rakesh Kumar v. Mr. Khursheed Ahmad and Ors. whereby application of revisionist herein, moved u/s 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act was rejected.

2. The brief facts relevant for the decision of this revision are that Rakesh Kumar had filed a Claim Petition No. 390 of 2003 u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the owner, driver and insurance company of the alleged offending vehicle. The owner of the vehicle filed written statement against the petition but when claimant examined his witness, he did not turned up to cross-examine the witness, therefore, the insurance company moved an application u/s 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act alleged that the owner of the vehicle is in collusion with the claimant and has failed to contest the claim, therefore, insurance company be permitted to contest the claim of all the ground which are available to the owner of the vehicle. This application was rejected by the learned court below by the impugned order. Feeling aggrieved by the said order this revision has been filed.

3. During the hearing of this revision none appeared on behalf of the respondents No. 3 and 4 who are the owner and the driver of the alleged offending vehicle. The claimants (respondents No. 1 and 2 herein) only appeared and contested the petition on the ground that the revision is not maintainable as the only remedy available to the aggrieved person is an appeal u/s 175 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the final award passed by the Tribunal. He further contended that there was no collusion between the owner of the alleged offending vehicle and the claimant, therefore, the learned court below was perfectly within his power to reject the application u/s 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the impugned order does not suffer from any error, illegality or irregularity and as such the revision deserve rejection.

4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the record of the case.

5. So far as the maintainability of this revision is concerned it is no more res Integra. Full Bench of this Court in case of Kamla Yadav v. Smt. Shushma Devi and Ors. 2004 (22) LCD 40, has ruled that an order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court u/s 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Thus, the objection regarding the maintainability of this revision has no merit.

6. So far as the legality and propriety in the impugned order is concerned, it reveals from the perusal of the record that an application was moved by the insurance company at initial stage u/s 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act for permitting him to contest the claim on all grounds which are available to the owner of the vehicle but this application was rejected stating therein that the owner of the alleged offending vehicle had filed written statement. Subsequent thereto, when claimant examined three witnesses and the owner of the alleged vehicle did not turn up after filing his written statement to cross-examine these witnesses, the present application u/s 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act was moved by insurance company for permission to contest the claim on all the grounds stating therein that it is evident from the record that the owner of the vehicle is not contesting the claim and as such it is necessary to accord permission to the insurance company to contest the claim on all those grounds which are available to the owner of the vehicle. This application was also rejected by the impugned order by the learned Tribunal. It reveals from the record that after filing the written statement, the owner of the alleged offending vehicle had not turned up to contest the claim and even he was not present when claimant