UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. SOBHA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Durgesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Madan Prasad Singh, learned counsel who has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1/claimant and Sri Ranjan Kumar Jha, learned counsel who has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2/owner of the offending vehicle. The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "M.V. Act") has been preferred against an order dated 8.2.2012 passed by Addl. District Judge (FTC-I)-cum-Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Jamui (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") in Claim Case No. 7 of 2007, whereby petition filed on behalf of claimant under Section 140 of the M.V. Act has been allowed and direction has been given to the appellant to pay Rs. 50,000/- (fifty thousand), as no fault claim.

(2.) Short fact of the case is that on 11.5.2007, son of respondent No. 1/claimant, while moving on a bicycle, was dashed by a tractor. In the said accident, the son of respondent No. 1 died and thereafter, in the year 2007, a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act was filed. In the said case, one another petition under Section 140 of the M.V. Act was filed seeking direction for payment of interim compensation. Before the Tribunal, the insurer filed written statement and raised objection on the point that forged insurance policy has been brought by the claimant. However, the learned Tribunal, by order dated 8.2.2012, allowed the petition filed by the claimant and directed the appellant to pay Rs. 50,000/- (fifty thousand), as interim compensation, which has been assailed in the present appeal.

(3.) Sri Duresh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, assailing the order of the Tribunal, submits that it is true that while considering a petition under Section 140 of the M.V. Act, there is no requirement of detailed inquiry, but at the same time, it was necessary for the Tribunal to notice the objection raised by the appellant, regarding forged insurance policy of offending vehicle. He further submits that in support of the stand of the insurance company that vehicle in question was not at all under insurance cover of the appellant, number of documents were brought on record by the insurer, even then, the Tribunal, ignoring the same, has passed the order and directed the appellant to pay the aforesaid amount, as interim compensation. He submits that since vehicle in question was not at all under insurance cover of the appellant, the appellant may not be liable to pay any compensation amount.