ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. RABIALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition is directed against an order dated 1.5.2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tura, in MACT Case No 109/99. The said order is quoted below:

(2.) Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits, that on the face of it, the said order dated 1.5.2002 is cryptic and does not disclose any reason for awarding the interim relieg by way of awarding an amount of Rs. 25,000/- to the claimant. Referring to the provisions of Section 140 and 142 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Mr. Dutta submits that an interim relief can only be awarded only in case of death and/or permanent disablement. In the instant case, the claimant sustained certain injuries arising out of the accident in question. According to the averments made in the claim petition, the claimant sustained injuries in the nature of fracture of ribs. In the impugned order dated 1.5.2002, there is no indication that such injury sustained by the claimant resulted in permanent disablement or comes within the definition of permanent disablement. In this connection, Mr. S. Dutta appearing for the petitioner, referred to a decision of this Court as reported in 2002 (1) TAC 333. As per the said decision, before coming to a conclusion relating to payment of compensation under Section 140, it is the bounden duty of the authority to assess as to whether the bodily injuries sustained by the claimant comes within the purview of permanent disablement or not. Mr. Dutta also referred to a decision of this Court in CR(P) No. 33(SH) 2001. The said civil revision petition was disposed of by this Court on 18.2.2002 under similar circumstances holding that the order awarding interim relief to the claimant therein was not a speaking order and the Tribunal failed to record reasons for grant of interim relief to the tune of Rs. 25,000/-. Referring to the decision of the Apex Court as reported in (1990) 4 SCC 594, this Court by the said order emphasised the need to record reasons.

(3.) Inspite of service of notice on the opposite parties, there is no appearance on their behalf. This Court, by an order dated 16.6.2003, while noticing that the notices for service of notice on the respondents were sent by registered post with AD ordered for deeming the service of notice on them. Today also, none appeared on behalf of the opposite parlies to contest the civil revision petition.