NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. P LEELA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal at the instance of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. is against the interim award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta in O.P.(MV) No.235/94 granting an amount of Rs. 25,000/- to respondents 1 to 5 under S.140 of the Motor Vehicles Act as compensation for the death of the husband of 1st respondent, father of respondents 2 to 4 and son of 5th respondent.

(2.) Certain facts are admitted in this case. An accident happened on 9.1.1994 out of the use of a motor vehicle which resulted in the death of one Ramachandran Pillai, husband of 1st respondent, father of respondents 2 to 4 and son of 5th respondent. It is also admitted that a claim has been put forward by respondents 1 to 5 against the owner of the vehicle impleaded as 1st respondent and insurance company impleaded as 2nd respondent. It is contended by the appellant that no interim award under S.140 can be granted in this case as, according to the appellant; the accident happened due to the negligence on the part of late Ramachandran Pillai who was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. It was also contended that late Ramachandran Pillai was real owner of the vehicle and therefore the claim petition itself is not maintainable.

(3.) We will first consider the second objection to the interim award viz., late Ramachandran Pillai himself was the owner of the vehicle. Admittedly in the registration certificate 1st respondent before the tribunal is shown as owner of the vehicle. It is also the case of the insurance company that the insurance policy is in the name of the 1st respondent. Except a reference made by the brother inlaw of late Ramachandran Pillai in the first information statement given before the police that two days before the accident Ramachandran Pillai had acquired ownership over the vehicle, there is no material on the basis of which the appellant could contend that the 1st respondent before the Tribunal was not the owner of the vehicle at the time of the accident. The 1st respondent had not put forward such a contention before the Tribunal. Therefore, we are inclined to take the view that the Tribunal has correctly concluded on the basis of the materials available before it at the time of passing an interim award under S.140 that the 1st respondent before the Tribunal was the owner of the vehicle.