ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SITLA PARSHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS first appeal against order raises an interesting question of law.

(2.) AS a result of a motor accident Sitla Parshad, the respondent herein, receiver an injury, so as to cause disablement of a limb. He filed a claim application under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act before of Tribunal appointed under the Act. During the course thereof, the Tribunal passed an order on August 30, 30, 1984, under S. 92a of the Motor Vehicles Act, awarding interim compensation of Rs. 7,500/- to the respondent, directing the Insurance Company, the appellant, to make payment thereof. It is to challenge that order that this appeal has been filed.

(3.) THE primary contention of Mr. Gandhi, learned counsel for the Insurance-company-appellant is that in the meantime the parent claim application has also been decided by the Tribunal, though incidentally against the appellant, and when an appeal has been preferred by it in this Court, it would be fair that the hearing of this appeal is deferred till that appeal is decided. The prayer is pregnant with the fear that if the present order gets confirmed, it might have the effect of holding for good the Insurance Company as liable to pay damages. But for the apprehension expressed, Mr. Gandhi has been unable to urge anything as to why S. 92a of the Act is not attracted which fixes liability on the owner of the vehicle without fault in certain cases. And undisputedly, present is a case of disablement attracting that provision. He cannot be allowed to say that the Insurance company is not to indemnify, even though in an interim way, the owner for such a liability in view of a decision of this Court in Oriental Fire and General Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Beasa Devi 1985 Acc CJ 1: (AIR 1985 Punj and Har 96 ). The Bench has observed in that regard as follows (at P. 101):-" we are of the view that provision of S. 92a is a piece of beneficial and ameliorative legislation providing providing for an immediate aid to the helpless and helpless victims of the motor accidents. The moment it is either admitted by the owner of the vehicle that his vehicles was involved in the accident or from the evidence adduced on the record, the Tribunal positively holds that vehicle of the owner in question was involved in that accident, if he denied that fact and then if the Tribunal comes to a further prima facie conclusion that the vehicles was insured, then the Tribunal without inquiring into correctness of other objections that may be raised by the insurance company would be entitled to make the award under S. 92 A and require the insurance company to pay the given amount to the claimants forthwith and thereafter investigate and inquire into the correctness or otherwise of the other objections that are raised wither by the insurance company or by the owner of the offending vehicle. 10. In the event of the Tribunal coming to the conclusion for valid reasons that the owner of the vehicle was not liable to pay any compensation on the principle of fault liability, then obviously no compensation is to be awarded on that score to the claimants under S. 110-B. Similarly, in the event of the Tribunal holding that the insurance company had proved such objections as under law avoided its responsibility to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle totally, then the Tribunal in the final award by virtue of provisions of sub-sec (4) of S. 96 would direct the owner of the offending vehicle to pay to the insurance company the amount which the insurance company had paid to the claimants in pursuance of the ward made under S. 92-A of the Act". At this juncture, it would be worthwhile to reproduce here S. 92-A:-