SANTOSH KUMAR Vs. SANJAY MORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Tribunal has rejected the appellant's application filed under Section 142 holding that fracture/extraction of tooth would not be a permanent disablement under Section 142 of Motor Vehicles Act, therefore the appellant would not be entitled to an interim award under Section 140 of the Act. Being dissatisfied by the said order, the appellant/claimant has filed this appeal.

(2.) Shri Kanojiya, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal was not justified in ignoring the provisions contained in Section 142 and was unjustified in rejecting the application. On the other hand Shri Jain and Shri Rao submit that extraction/destruction of the tooth would not be a permanent disability, therefore Section 140 would not be applicable at this stage. Counsel for the respondents also submit that for the purpose of Section 140 there must be a permanent disablement as defined under Section 142. According to them, nothing further can be added to Section 142.

(3.) Section 140 provides for liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle of no fault. Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads as under :-