DIVISIONAL MANAGER Vs. SABILA KHATOON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 26.7.2000, passed by the learned 3rd Additional Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Muzaffarpur, in claim Case No. 111 of 1998 (Most. Sabila Khatoon vs. Saidur Rahman), whereby the insurer (the appellant herein) has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/ - to the claimants (respondent nos. 1 to 3 herein) by way of interim compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 10 Act ';). The appellant challenges the same on the ground that payment of interim compensation in terms of Section 140 of the Act is the liability of the owner of the vehicle.

(2.) WHILE assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the insurer is liable to pay compensation to persons covered by the Policy after final determination of the claim application. The interim compensation in terms of Sec. 140 of the Act, which is in pari 15. materia with the provisions of Section 92A of 1939 Act lay down to the effect that the liability is of the owner of the vehicle, and the Tribunal should decide the question of interim compensation keeping in mind the constraints indicated in paragraph 43 of the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1991 SC 1769 (Shivaji Dayanu Patil vs. Smt. Vatschala Uttam More). In his submission, the Tribunal has failed to determine the question appropriately. For example, it is the 20. appellant ';s contention that the driver of the vehicle was not in possession of a valid driving licence as is manifest from letter dated 18.12.98 (Annexure 1), but not considered by the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on paragraph 14 of the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court to which i was a party, reported in 2001 (3) PLJR 103 (Kanhai Rai & ors. vs. Dharampal & ors.). 25 3 Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 (the claimants) has supported the impugned order. 4 Learned counsel for respondent no. 4 (the owner of the vehicle) has also made submissions in support of the impugned order. 5. Having considered the rival submissions, I am of the view that this issue is covered by the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kanhai Rai vs. Dharampal (supra), 30. paragraph 20 of which is relevant to the present context and is set out hereinbeiow for the facility of quick reference :