JUDGMENT - KHARCHE S.T., J.:-Heard. By consent the matter is heard finally. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 21-1-1999 passed by the learned member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribuna, Nagpur in Claim Petition No. 796/1997, rejecting the application filed by the appellant seeking compensation on the ground of no fault liability under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (In short, the Act). 3. Chandrabhagabai died as a result of an accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle i.e. scooter bearing Registration No. MH-31/R-5669. This scooter is owned by respondent No. 1, whereas it was being driven by respondent No. 2 on the relevant date and time. The scooter has been duly ensured with respondent No. 3 and the insurance is valid from 28-10-1996 till cancellation of the registration. The appellants are the legal representatives of the deceased in the sense that both the appellants are daughters of deceased Chandrabhagabai. Appellants have filed the claim petition under section 166 of the Act seeking compensation on the contentions that the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the same. The appellants also filed an application (Exh. 5) seeking relief of compensation on the ground of no fault liability which was rejected by the learned member of Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal on 21-1-1999 on hearing the learned Counsel for the parties. This order is under challenge in the appeal. 4. Mr. Tathod, the learned Counsel for the appellants contended that it is not disputed that the accident occurred on 3-9-1997, Chandrabhagabai was travelling as a pillion rider on the scooter owned by respondent No. 1 which was being driven by respondent No. 2 on the relevant date and time. It is also not disputed that the said motor vehicle has been duly ensured with the respondent No. 3 and the learned member of the MACT has committed an error in rejecting the said application on erroneous approach of the matter. He contended that the application filed under section 140 of the Act could not have been rejected on considering as to whether the driver of the motor vehicle involved in the accident was negligent in driving the scooter. He further contended that simply because the appellant happened to be a close relative of the respondent Nos. He contended that the application filed under section 140 of the Act could not have been rejected on considering as to whether the driver of the motor vehicle involved in the accident was negligent in driving the scooter. He further contended that simply because the appellant happened to be a close relative of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the appellants can be held to be not entitled to claim compensation on the ground of no fault liability. He further contended that in this circumstance, the impugned order passed by the member, MACT cannot be sustained in law and the matter deserves to be remanded for disposal according to law. 5. Mr. Khanzode, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3-Insurance Company contended that the vehicle involved in the accident has been duly insured covering third party risk as per the copy of the insurance policy produced on record and contended that the appellants are not entitled to receive compensation from the Insurance Company because the risk regarding the death of Chandrabhagabai is not covered under the insurance policy. 6. I have given thoughtful consideration to the contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the parties. At this juncture it may be stated that in order to attract the provisions of section 140 of the Act, the appellants-claimants are not required to show that the driver of the motor vehicle in the accident was either rash or negligent in driving his vehicle. At this juncture it may be stated that in order to attract the provisions of section 140 of the Act, the appellants-claimants are not required to show that the driver of the motor vehicle in the accident was either rash or negligent in driving his vehicle. Sub-section (1) of section 140 of the Act lays down that; "Where death or permanent disablement of any person has resulted from an accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle or motor vehicles, the owner of the vehicle shall, or as the case may be, the owners of the vehicles shall, jointly and severally be liable to pay compensation in respect of such death." Whereas, sub-section (2) contemplates that; "The amount of compensation which shall be payable under sub-section (1) in respect of the death of any person shall be a fixed sum of fifty thousand rupees and the amount of compensation payable under that sub-section in respect of the permanent disablement of any person shall be a fixed sum of twenty five thousand rupees." and sub-section (3) lays down that;" In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), shall not be required to plead and establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner or owners of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person". 7. Thus, simple reading of section 140 of the Act would reveal that the Tribunal is required to take into consideration as to whether the death has resulted in an accident arisen out of the use of the motor vehicle and on perusal of the first information report, copy of the spot panchanama, form of compensation-AA, copy of insurance policy, etc. can award the amount of compensation on the ground of no fault liability. Detail enquiry in relation as to whether the accident occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver is not required to be made at the stage of deciding the application under section 140 of the Act. In such circumstance, it is quite obvious that the observation of the Tribunal that there is evidence before him at that stage to come to the conclusion that the scooter was being driven rashly and negligently by the driver i.e. husband of the deceased Chandrabhagabai cannot be sustained in law. In such circumstance, it is quite obvious that the observation of the Tribunal that there is evidence before him at that stage to come to the conclusion that the scooter was being driven rashly and negligently by the driver i.e. husband of the deceased Chandrabhagabai cannot be sustained in law. Similarly, simply because the appellants-claimants happens to be the relatives of the owner or driver of the scooter that cannot by itself be a ground to reject the claim under section 140 of the Act. 8. In the circumstances, this is a fit case which deserves to be remanded to the Tribunal. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and matter is remanded for fresh decision, in accordance with law, expeditiously preferably within a month. 9. Appeal is allowed with no order as to costs. Appeal allowed. -----