Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ... vs Bhagwan Munjaji Pawade And Others
2016 Latest Caselaw 5815 Bom

                                                           WP No. 9123/2016
                                          1




                                                                          
                      IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
                  APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                  
                            WRIT PETITION NO. 9123 OF 2016

              Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company
              Limited, GE Plaza, Airport Road,
              Yerwada, Pune - 411 006.




                                                 
              Through its Branch Manager/Authorized
              Signatory, LIC Building, Jalna Road,
              Aurangabad.                           ....Petitioner.




                                       
                      Versus

     1.
                             
              Bhagwan s/o. Munjaji Pawade,
              Age 43 years, Occu. Nil,
                            
     2.       Dhrupadabai w/o. Bhagwan Pawade,
              Age 38 years, Occu. Household,

              Both R/o. Suregaon, Taluka Aundha
              (Nagnath), District Hingoli.
      


     3.       Manik s/o. Dayanoba Tompe,
   



              Age Major, Occu. Business &
              Agriculture, R/o. Suregaon,
              Taluka Aundha (Nagnath),
              District Hingoli.                    ....Respondents.





     Mr. S.G. Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for petitioner.
     Mrs. A.N. Ansari, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

                                        CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE, J.





                                        DATED : 1st October, 2016.
     JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent,

heard both the sides for final disposal.

2. The petition is filed to challenge the orders made on

WP No. 9123/2016

Exhs. 32, 53, 48, 57 and 59 filed in Claim Petition No. 204/2013,

which is pending before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Parbhani. Applications at Exhs. 32 and 53 are filed for allowing

the Insurance Company to examine the Investigating Officer of

the criminal case involved in the matter. Application at Exh. 48 is

filed to bring the record of M.L.C. on record and for permission of

examining the witness for proving the M.L.C.. Exh. 57 is filed for

permission to lead evidence by recalling the order of closure of

evidence of Insurance Company and Exh. 59 is also filed for

exhibiting the documents.

3. The Insurance Company has taken defence of non

involvement of vehicle shown in the accident and it is contended

that some other vehicle was involved and so, the liability cannot

be fastened on the Insurance Company. It is the case of

Insurance Company that there is apparent collusion between the

claimants and the owner shown in the claim petition.

4. In view of the aforesaid contentions made by the

Insurance Company and the circumstance that owner has not

seriously contested the matter, the Insurance Company needs to

be given permission to contest the matter as provided u/s. 170

of Motor Vehicle Act. In view of this circumstance, the Tribunal

ought to have allowed the Insurance Company to take steps

WP No. 9123/2016

mentioned in the aforesaid exhibits. These days happening of

such things has become routine and not an exception. In view of

these circumstances, this Court holds that interference is

warranted by use of the extraordinary jurisdiction.

5. So, the petition is allowed. The orders made by the

Claims Tribunal on aforesaid applications are hereby set aside.

The applications filed for calling the record of M.L.C., for calling

witness for proving M.L.C. record, for calling Investigating Officer

of the criminal case and for proving and confronting the record

created during investigation and the order made of closure of

evidence are allowed. Orders under challenge are hereby set

aside. This exercise is to be done by the Insurance Company

before the Claims Tribunal within four months from the date of

the order and if this exercise is not done within this period, there

will be liberty to the Claims Tribunal to pass order like closure of

evidence and go ahead with the matter. Rule is made absolute in

aforesaid terms.

[ T.V. NALAWADE, J. ] ssc/