ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. LALITA SAMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE insurance company has filed this appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, challenging the legality of the order dated 28.5.1997 passed by the Joint Labour Commissioner -cum -Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Bhubaneswar, in W.C. Case No. 91 -J of 1996, where -under the Commissioner directed payment of Rs. 50,000 to the claimants under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as interim compensation.

(2.) AS the claimants -respondents have entered appearance at the stage of admission, their counsel has also been heard on the question of admission.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the appellant also contended that the insurance company in its written statement had denied that the vehicle had been insured with the insurance company and in the absence of detailed inquiry, the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner should not have saddled the liability regarding the payment of interim compensation on the insurance company. The provisions and procedure contemplated in Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, are intended as interim measures and if a detailed inquiry would be insisted upon at that stage, the very purpose of Section 140 would be lost. It has been observed by the Supreme Court in the decision in Shivaji Dayanu Patil v. Vatschala Uttam More, 1991 ACJ 777 (SC), the Claims Tribunal is not required to hold a regular trial in the same manner as for finally adjudicating a claim application under the Act while considering the question of awarding compensation under Section 92 -A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which corresponds to Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. As has been observed in the aforesaid Supreme Court decision while considering the question of 'no fault liability' the Tribunal is to satisfy itself in respect of the following matters: