ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. PRITAMLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision has been placed before the division Bench on the reference by the learned single Judge Hon'ble Awasthy, J. The legal question referred for decision of the Division Bench is, whether an order awarding compensation under section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, on the principle of "no fault liability" is appealable under section 110-D of the said Act or only revision under section 115 Civil Procedure Court is tonable against the order granting such compensation.

(2.) THE learned single Judge noticed that no consistent procedure was being followed in this court and in some cases (e. g. M. A. No. 50/85, decided on 24-2-1986, by Hon. Gulab Gupta, J.) the appeals were entertained against the order of compensation under section 92-A of the Act and in some cases (e. g. C. R. No. 625/83, decided on 9-7-1985 by Hon. S. Awasthy, J.) revisions were tertained and decided. He has, therefore, referred the matter for decision of the Larger Bench. We have heard arguments advanced by Shri Prakash Naik, advocate for the petitioner and Shri Umesh Trivedi, Advocate, for the respondents. Both of them have contended that an appeal is tenable under section 110-D against the order of compensation granted under section 92-A of the Act.

(3.) AFTER hearing the parties and looking into the relevant provisions we are also of the opinion that an appeal under section 110-D of the Act would lie against the order of compensation granted by the Claims Tribunal under section 92-A of the act and the question referred is liable to be answered accordingly. We may now state the reasons in support of our conclusion. Section 92-A of the Act is contained in Chapter VII-A of the Act, which may be reproduced as under