NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. SUNITA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned advocate for the respondents made a grievance that except statutory deposit, the amount ordered by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was not deposited. This appeal was filed in order to challenge order dated 24.4.2008 passed by learned Member, M.A.C.T., Akola whereby the appellant along with other non-applicants were directed to pay compensation in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- as joint and several liability in view of Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The amount was directed to be paid within a period of 60 days from the date of the order, failing which the claimants were entitled to get interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of order till realization. The appellant has challenged the impugned order on the ground that there was collision between two motor vehicles-tempo trax and truck while truck was standing on the road and driver, owner and insurer of the truck were also necessary parties in the matter as it is a case of contributory negligence, according to the appellant. The tempo trax which met with motor accident was insured with the appellant on the date of accident and death had resulted of Sanjay Tayade after the tempo trax bearing registration No. Mh-28-C-0253 driven by respondent no. 7 Nandu and owned by respondent no. 8 Ambadas Korpe met with road accident. The prima facie fact that there was an accident by the use of offending motor vehicles, secondly it was insured on the date of incident and thirdly death of one Sanjay Tayade had resulted on whose behalf claim was made for compensation. With these basic facts, the Tribunal was satisfied and was well within its jurisdiction and power to order compensation under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

(2.) The contention that appellant is not liable to pay compensation is the question which could be considered and decided in main application if heard and decided on merits and at the instant stage when compensation is made payable statutorily even if there is no fault on the part of insurer, owner or driver concerned of the motor vehicle by use of which the accident had resulted. Hence, this court by order dated 19.9.2008 had called R & P and expedited the hearing. However, the appeal was repeatedly adjourned on the ground that stay application was pending. Out of the amount of Rs. 50.000/- awarded on the basis of no fault liability, the amount of Rs. 25,000/- was allowed to be withdrawn conditionally by order dated 4.2.2009. Under these circumstances, when main claim application for compensation is pending, it would be in the interest of justice and in the interest of rival parties that they shall tender their evidence in the main proceedings under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act instead of keeping the present appeal pending without any useful purpose. It is well settled legal position stated as above that claimant need not prove negligence on the part of driver/owner of the motor vehicle which is insured when order under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act is passed. Hence, there is no merit in the appeal. It is dismissed.

(3.) The Civil Application No. 6700/08 also would not survive and it is dismissed.