NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. SWARAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant, Dr. Singhvi, Senior Advocate, has vehemently contended that the learned lower Court while passing the impugned order for interim compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act (`the Act' for short) did not take into consideration the defence of the appellant that the person who was driving the vehicle was not holding the driving licence and the vehicle was being driven without a licence. Learned counsel in this connection has led me through a letter dated March 23, 1994 written by Khatri & Associates to M/s National Insurance Co. Then there is another letter from Khatri & Associates dated January 29, 1994 addressed to the Licensing Authority, Alwar with a report of the Licensing Authority thereon. The other letter which I have been taken through is from Mahajan Associates to National Insurance Company, Pathankot dated March 2, 1995 with a report of the Transport Officer. Dr. Singhvi on the basis of the above has strenuously argued that there is a prima facie proof to the effect that the vehicle in question was being driven by the driver without a licence. According to him, had this preliminary enquiry been conducted in that eventuality the Court could not have granted interim compensation to the claimant. The learned counsel thus contends that before passing an order under Section 140 of the Act an enquiry is a must as held by a Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court as reported in Pradeep Rao & Ors. v. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Ors., 1 (1996) ACC 176. To the same effect are the observations of a single Judge of the Bombay High Court as reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Gajanan & Ors., 1 (1997) ACC 361.

(3.) Since we are concerned with the construction of Section 140 of the Act, the relevant provisions of the said Section can be adverted to with profit as the same would set at rest the present controversy. Section 140(3) is in the following words:- "140(3). In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead and establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner or owners of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person.