Under Section 140 (2) MVA it appears that the insurance company is only a Noticee party and not a real party before the Tribunal with limited right to defend the claims as per section 149 (7). Now in most of the cases the owner of the offending vehicle are influence by the claimants and at times they are ignorant of the legal implications and simply filed simple written statements, and in most of the cases it is drafted by the claimant lawyers without any meaning in it sufficient to contest the case. But under Section 170 of the Act provision is made that if the Tribunal is satisfied for reasons to be recorded in writing direct the Insurance to be impleaded as a party. Does it mean that even if the claimant implead the Insurance as a party in the plaint, is it necessary to implead the insurance again by the Tribunal?
My query is, if there is a collusion between the insured and the claimant as it happened in most of the cases, should the insurer filed an application to implead as a party though alreday impleaded by the claimant, so that it can contest the caser on merit? And if it is refused by the Tribunal, should the claimant and the passive owner of the offending vehicle go on with a joker proceedings before the Tribunal with insurer helplessly witnessing the farce proceedings, and fish out a heafty amount to pay the claimant without a remedy to appeal.
Not only this, even the Tribunal may become a part of the claimant party, and the law as it stands today appears to be very biased towards the Insurance company. Yes, compensatory Legislation like MVA is a Social Leegislation, but in the name of Socil Legislation, we can not just closed our eyes to dark side of legal realites, where noble vision is converted to Vampires vision.
I request members of LCI to kindly share their views on this aspects and also clarified filling of application before the Tribunal to be impleaded as a party though alreday impleaded as a party, and the refusal of the Tribunal to be impleaded as a party and its conseqauences.
