NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SUMATI SETHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as "the Act") challenging the order dated 23.5.1998 passed by the 2nd M.A.C.T., Cuttack in Misc. Case No. 576 of 1995 directing payment of Rs. 50,000.00 to the claimants as interim relief, under no fault liability u/s. 140 of the Act.

(2.) THE claimants were the dependents of the deceased who died in a motor accident caused by the offending tanker bearing registration number ORP 7231. The present appellant - the Insurance company - objected to the said prayer and after hearing the parties and perusing the -documents on record, the 2nd M.A.C.T. was of the view that the death of the deceased was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. Accordingly he allowed the prayer of the claimants and rejected the objection raised by the Insurance Company that at that stage the claimants were to prove the accident and that the death of the deceased was caused due to the said accident as also the insurance of the offending tanker by leading evidence.

(3.) IN support of his contention, Shri Chowdhury has placed reliance on the decisions reported in (Shivaji Dayantt Patil and another v. Vatschala Uttam More) (Divisional Manager v. Smt. Mala Kar and others) and (New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Ghara Nag and others). In the first case it has been held by the Supreme Court that the Claims Tribunal is not required to follow the normal procedure as prescribed with regard to adjudication of claim under Section 110 -A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Section 166 of the 1988 Act) while disposing of an application under Section 92 -A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. It has been further held by the Apex Court that for awarding compensation and Section 92 -A of the Act, the Claims Tribunal is required to satisfy itself in respect of the following matters: