from the insured for building its defence that is permissible under the Act. If that is refused, it may apply to the Court at the trial for rights of defence under Section 170. It may also happen that the owner and the driver remained ex parte. It could provide an instance of evidence of collusion. Yet another situation could be when the insured takes a deliberate plea of involvement of the vehicle when the insurer has other information that the vehicle had not been involved at all. Such information could become possible for the insurer either before the trial or when the trial is in progress. In either case, the insurer cannot suffer an award and then plead that the insured had been acting in collusion. A fraud at the trial which is disclosed may vitiate the award itself but it must be an intrinsic fraud which the insured did not know at the trial but may afford to him a right to prefer an appeal and contend that a fraud had been committed and, therefore, the award is vitiated. I have not a ground of fraud urged in appeal. On the other hand, in the application for permission under Section 170 filed at the appellate stage, the contention is that the owner has died and, therefore, the insured could not be interested in preferring the appeal. If the owner has died, the representatives of the owner must be urged to prefer an appeal if there are grounds made for the same. It has been already held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company Limited Versus Bushan Sachdeva-(2002) 2 SCC 265 , that an insured could be treated as an aggrieved person, although there is an insurer to indemnify the claim against the insured. There has been string of authorities delivered from the Hon'ble Supreme Court itself that the Insurance Company cannot
