SUKHABHAI BHANUBHAI SOLANKI Vs. OWNER OF SHIVSAGAR TRADERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant / Original Claimant has preferred the present appeal under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1994 challenging the order passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Rajkot dtd. 14/3/2018 below Exh.7 in M.A.C. Petition No. 114 of 2016, whereby the learned Tribunal rejected the Application of the Appellant preferred under Sec. 140 of the M.V.Act for getting the interim compensation of Rs.25,000.00 under 'No Fault Liability' along with interest from the Opponent.

(2.) Heard Mr. Hemal Shah, learned Advocate for the Appellant and learned Advocate Mr. Rathin P. Raval for the Opponent.

(3.) The main ground raised by the learned Advocate for the Appellant in the present Appeal is that the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is improper, unjust, against the provision of law and facts and also against the circumstances of the case as well as against the settled legal position. It is also contended that the the judgment and award is against the provisions enshrined in Chapter X of the M.V.Act and also against the different authorities cited at the bar. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal has not exercised the jurisdiction vested in it and thereby has committed illegality and irregularity. It is therefore submitted that if the impugned judgment and award is not modified, then the same will cause a gross injustice to the Appellant. It is further submitted by the learned Advocate for the Appellant that the learned Tribunal has committed a grave error in interpreting Sec. 140 of the M.V.Act as under this provision all that is required to attract the liability under Sec. 140 is an accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, leading to the death or permanent disability of any person. The learned Tribunal ought to have considered that whether the permanent disability to the Appellant occurred due to accident arising out of the use of the motor cycle and but and nothing else. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal ventured into an area that is completely alien to the provisions of Sec. 140 of the M.V.Act. Learned Advocate for the Appellant has submitted that the scope of inquiry under Sec. 140 of the M.V.Act is limited and the learned Tribunal only needs to ascertain three factors viz. (i) the accident has arisen out of the use of motor vehicle; (ii) the accident has resulted in permanent disablement of the person who is making the claim or the death of the person whose legal representatives are making the claim; and (iii) the claim is made against the owner and insurance of the motor vehicles involved in the accident and on all such counts the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Main) at Rajkot, ought to have allowed the Application preferred under Sec. 140 of the M.V. Act. It is therefore prayed that the present Appeal may be allowed by suitably modifying the award dtd. 14/3/2018 passed by the learned Tribunal in MACP No. 114 of 2016 by granting the interim relief application under Sec. 140 of the M.V.Act below Exh.7 and thereby awarding Rs.25000.00 to the Appellant along with 9% interest and proportionate cost.