NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. PRAVIN — 1998 DIGILAW 644 (GUJ)

S. K. KESHOTE, J. ( 1 ) THE arguments in this appeal were heard on 24-9-1998 and the order was kept C. A. V. While dictating the order, this Court found that the appeal is barred by six days. This delay in filing of the appeal is not condoned. There are many office objections pointed out by the registry of this Court and those have also not been removed. On the memo of appeal, the appellant has not paid proper and full Court fees also. No application for condonation of delay has been filed. After noticing all these facts, the matter was kept for rehearing on 2 9/09/1998. On 29/09/1998, the matter was adjourned to 6/10/1998 on the request of Counsel for the appellant. Though the adjournment has been sought by the Counsel for the appellant on 29/09/1998 but till date. the office objections have not been removed. ( 2 ) THIS appeal is filed by the appellant. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. . against the order dated 20-10-1997 of M. A. C. Tribunal (Aux. II), Surendranagar below ex. 5 in M. A. C. P. No. 288 of 1997. Under this order, the appellant and owner and driver of the offending vehicle were directed to deposit jointly and severally rs. 50,000/- with running interest at the rate of 15% from the date of application till realisation within one month from the dale of order, it is further ordered that on such amount being deposited, the same be paid to the applicants-claimants equally by an Account Payee Cheque. It is not in dispute that this order has been passed under Sec. 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on the principle of no fault liability. ( 3 ) IN this State. I find that invariably all the orders passed by the Motor Accident claims Tribunal under Sec. 140 of the M. V. Act, 1988 are being challenged by the Insurance Company by filing appeals before this Court. This approach of the insurance company is not only erroneous but it is an attempt on its part and more so by the State. Agency or Instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution to defeat the very object and purpose of the benevolent and beneficial provision as framed by the legislature. This approach of the insurance company is not only erroneous but it is an attempt on its part and more so by the State. Agency or Instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution to defeat the very object and purpose of the benevolent and beneficial provision as framed by the legislature. ( 4 ) MOTOR Vehicles Act, 1939 was amended vide Amendment Act No. 47 of 1982 and Sec. 92a was inserted therein w. e. f. 12-12-1982. By inserting this provision, the principle of award of compensation on no fault liability has been given statutory recognition. Under this provision, for injury Rs. 7,500. 00 and for death Rs. 15. 000. 00 were prescribed as amount of interim compensation to be awarded to the injured and claimants of deceased in motor vehicular accident on the principle of no fault liability. The Act, 1939 was replaced by Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and therein corresponding section to Sec. 92a is Sec. 140. It is not in dispute that this sec. 140 of the M. V. Act, 1988 has been amended w. e. f. 14-11-1994 vide Motor vehicles Amendment Act No. 15 of 1994 and now the interim compensations to be awarded for injury and death in a motor vehicular accident are Rs. 25. 000. 00 and rs. 50. 000/- respectively. This amount of interim compensation to be awarded in the case of injury or death, as the case may be, cannot be said to be a small amount. It is not unknown that even in many of the cases, in final award which has been passed sometimes an amount of less than Rs. 1,oo,ooo. 00 is awarded and if we go by this fact, then the amount of Rs. 25,000. 00 and Rs. 50. 000. 00 cannot be said to be small amount. It is true that very specifically the principles as laid down for the investment and disbursement of the amount of compensation awarded for injury and death resulting in a motor vehicular accident are not strictly applicable in the matter of investment and disbursement of the interim amount awarded under Sec. 140 of the M. V. Act, 1988. ( 5 ) IN the case of New India Assurance Co. ( 5 ) IN the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamlaben, reported in 1993 (1) GLR 779 the Full Bench of this Court has laid down that the principle as laid down therein has to be applied for investment and disbursement of the amount of interim compensation awarded for the injury or death in the motor vehicular accident under Sec. 92a of the M. V. Act, 1939 or Sec. 140 of the M. V. Act, 1988, but the correctness of the judgment has been questioned before the Apex Court and the apex Court in the case of Lilaben Udesing Gohel v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. , reported in 1996 (3) SCC 608 : [1996 (3) GLR 5 (SC)] has not approved the principle as laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of New India Assurance co. Ltd. v. Kamlaben (supra) so far it relates to the investment and disbursement of the amount of compensation awarded for the injury or death caused in a motor vehicular accident. The Honble Supreme Court has confirmed the principle as laid down for investment and disbursement of the amount of compensation awarded for the injury or the death caused in a motor vehicular accident as laid down by the larger Bench of this Court in the case of Muljibhai A. Harijan v. United India insurance Co. Ltd. , reported in 1982 (1) GLR 756 . Though at the time when the apex Court decided this matter, the fact that the M. V. Act, 1988 has been amended and the amount of compensation to be awarded by way of interim relief on the principle of no fault liability has been raised to Rs. 25. 000. 00 for injury and Rs. 50,000. 00 for death appears to have not been brought to the notice of the Honble court. Be that as it may. ( 6 ) FROM the reading of the judgment of the Apex Court, I do not find where the Court has specifically laid down or provided that the principle as laid down for the investment and disbursement of the amount of compensation in the case of muljibhai A. Harijan v. United India Insurance Co. Be that as it may. ( 6 ) FROM the reading of the judgment of the Apex Court, I do not find where the Court has specifically laid down or provided that the principle as laid down for the investment and disbursement of the amount of compensation in the case of muljibhai A. Harijan v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. , 1982 (1) GLR 756 as approved by the said Court will not apply for the investment and disbursement of the amount of interim compensation to be awarded for injury or death under Sec. 140 of the M. V. Act, 1988. The purpose and object to lay down the principle for investment and the disbursement of the amount of compensation in the case of muljibhai A. Harijan v. United India Insurance Co. , 1982 (1) GLR 756 as approved by the Apex Court in the case of Lilaben Udesing v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. , 1996 (3) SCC 608 : [1996 (3) GLR 5 (SC)] is that. that amount may not be frittered away. I am of the considered opinion that these very principles are to be made applicable for the investment and disbursement of the amount of interim compensation, otherwise the possibility of frittering away of this amount cannot be ruled out. The amount of Rs. 50,000. 00 in the case of death and Rs. 25,000. 00 in the case of injury is not a small amount and we cannot lose the sight of fact that this order under sec. 140 of the Act, 1988 is passed at the stage where the proceedings in the claim application are at the initial stage. Apart from this, only this amount may not be frittered away but there is all chances of spending of this amount for some other purposes which are not as important and essential than the expenses of food, cloth etc. Keeping in view the principles as laid down in the case of Muljibhai A. Harijan v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), for investment and disbursement of amount of compensation awarded for injury or death caused in a motor vehicular accident, I am of the opinion that those principles have to be adhered to and applied with all rigor and force to the investment and disbursement of the amount of interim compensation to be awarded for injury or death in a motor vehicular accident under sec. 140 of the M. V. Act, 1988. ( 7 ) I have seen many of the cases where the Tribunals are passing order for payment of the amount of interim compensation to the claimants. So in the case of death, the claimants are getting Rs. 50,000. 00 by way of interim compensation, and in the case of injury, Rs. 25,000. 00 under this head, and full amount is being paid to these persons and as such it makes a room for frittering away of this amount or the use of this amount by the claimants for the purpose and use which are not very important and necessary than the expenses of food and clothes. ( 8 ) IN the present case, the Tribunal has ordered for the payment of Rs. 50,000. 00 to the claimants equally. This interim award is passed on 20-10-1997. 50% amount thereof, i. e. , Rs. 25,000. 00 has been deposited here and it is not known whether balance amount has been deposited by the insurance company in the Tribunal or not or in case it is deposited how that amount has been dealt with by the Tribunal. ( 9 ) IT is hereby ordered that the principle as laid down for investment and disbursement of the amount of compensation to be awarded for the injury or death in a motor vehicular accident in the case of Muljibhai A. Harijan v. United India insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) shall be applied for the investment and disbursement of the amount of interim compensation to be awarded for injury or death caused in a motor vehicular accident under Sec. 140 of the M. V. Act, 1988 on the principle of no fault liability and all the Tribunals are expected to scrupulously apply and follow this principle in the matter of investment and disbursement of the amount of interim compensation. In this case, the other side has not been called and I am satisfied that this appeal otherwise deserves to be dismissed on more than one ground and calling of the other side only for the purpose of passing of direction for investment and disbursement of this amount of interim compensation will cause unnecessary monetary burden to them. I do not consider it to be appropriate to call them. It is hereby ordered that Rs. 25. 000. I do not consider it to be appropriate to call them. It is hereby ordered that Rs. 25. 000. 00 which has been deposited by the appellant before this Court shall be remitted to the concerned Tribunal forthwith, and in case balance of amount is not deposited by the appellant then the same shall be deposited in the Tribunal within period of two months from today, and the Tribunal shall thereafter, after giving notice to the claimants pass appropriate order for investment and disbursement of this amount in accordance with the guidelines as laid down by this Court in the case of Muljibhai A. Harijan v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and approved by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Lilaben udesing v. Oriental India Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra ). ( 10 ) REGISTRAR of this Court is directed to send copy of this order to all the subordinate Courts of the State which are exercising powers of Motor Accident claims Tribunal under Motor Vehicles Act. 1988. ( 11 ) THE impugned interim award is passed by the Motor Accident Claims tribunal on 20-10-1997 and this appeal has been filed by the appellant in this Court on 29-1-1998. This appeal is barred by six days. As usual, the insurance company filed this appeal before this Court on the Court fees stamp of Rs. 5. 00. The office has raised the objection that this appeal is not filed on proper and full Court fees. The deficiency of Court fees is made good on 19/02/1998. If we go by these facts, then this appeal is barred by 6+21=27 days. On 29/01/1998 when this appeal was presented it was invalid and incompetent appeal. The office objections were not removed. No application for condonation of delay caused in filing of appeal has also been filed nor any application has been made for the extension of time to make good the deficiency of Court fees. Not only this, even in the memo of appeal, the appellant has not incorporated the prayer for condonation of delay as well as for extension of time to make good the deficiency of Court fees. ( 12 ) IN the result, this appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation. .