DILIP NAMDEO GAIKWAD Vs. RAMCHANDRA DHONDU KSHIRSAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6. The Appellants are the original opponents in a claim petition filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") by the Respondents Nos. 1 to 5 herein. In the said claim petition the Respondents Nos. 1 to 5 made an application under section 140 of the said Act for grant of compensation of Rs. 25,000/- on account of no fault liability. By order dated 7th February 1991, the said application was allowed and the Appellant No. 2 herein was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- to the respondents Nos. 1 to 5. The Judgment and order dated 7th February 1991 has been impugned in the present appeal.

(2.) THE learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants submitted that even according to the Respondents Nos. 1 to 5, the cause of death of the deceased was a heart attack. She pointed out that the accident took place on 22nd March 1989 and on 26th June 1989 the deceased suffered an heart attack and died on 9th July 1989. She submitted that there is not even a remote connection between the cause of death of the deceased and the accident allegedly involving the vehicle owned by the appellant No. 2. She submitted that the order under section 140 of the said Act or under section 92-A of the motor Vehicle Act 1939 could not have been passed by the learned Member of the Tribunal.

(3.) DURING the course of the submissions, attention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant was invited to the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Divisional Controller, MSRTC, Jalgaon v/s. Bapu onkar Chaudhari (2003 (4) Mah. L. J. page 990 ). The view taken by the Full Bench of this Court is that no appeal is maintainable against the order passed under section 140 of the said Act. At this stage Shri S. R. Singh, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 6 submitted that the decision of the Full Bench is per incuriam inasmuch as the Full Bench has not considered the proviso to section 168 of the said Act. He submitted that the decision of the Full Bench cannot be read as a binding precedent in view of the fact that the full Bench has not considered a decision of the Apex court in the case of Chandra Kana Sinha v/s. Oriental insurance Co. Ltd. and others (2002 ACJ page 210), which holds that an appeal against an order made under section 140 of the said Act is maintainable. Mrs. Agarwal appearing for the Appellants adopted the submissions of shri S. R. Singh.