CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2006) 01 P&H CK 0076

United India Insurance Company Limited vs Smt. Ridhi Kapoor and Others

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 13 January 2006 · Citation: (2006) 2 ACC 190 : (2006) 142 PLR 517

HON’BLE JUDGES
Hemant Gupta, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
C.R. No. 172 of 2006

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 346 words

Hemant Gupta, J.—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.