Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 422 (ORI)

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Susanti Rout

2007-06-18

A.S.NAIDU

body2007
JUDGMENT A.S.NAIDU, J. - The interim order of maintenance passed under Section 140 of the M.V Act in Misc. Case No.145 of 1995 by the Second Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhenkanal is assailed by the National Insurance Company Ltd. in this appeal filed under Section 173 of the M.V Act,1988. 2. In a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 04.7.1995 on National High Way No.42 one Muralidhar Rout sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the said injuries. Petitioner-respond¬ent Nos.1 to 3 filed a petition under Section 166 of the M.V Act claiming compensation. On the basis of such petition M.A.C Case No.144 of 1995 has been registered. 3. After receiving notice owner of the offending vehicle did not appear. The Insurance Company has filed written statement vaguely denying about the accident and taking a stand that the offending vehicle was not driven in a rash and negligent manner. The age, occupation and income of the deceased were also chal¬lenged. During pendency of the aforesaid case a petition under Section 140 of the M.V Act was filed by the petitioner-respond¬ents claiming interim maintenance. 4. After perusing the F.I.R, final form and other police statements as well as post mortem report and being prima-facie satisfied that the death occurred due to motor vehicular accident caused by the offending vehicle, the Tribunal allowed the peti¬tion and directed the Insurance Company to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- and further directed that out of the said amount 80% shall be kept in fixed deposit in any Nationalised Bank for a period of six years. Being aggrieved the appellant-Insurance Company has approached this Court. 5. Mr. Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company strenuously submitted that the liability of the insurer is attracted to pay the compensation only after it is established that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and that too if the insurance policy is valid. Without determining the said facts no order for payment of interim maintenance can be passed. 6. This submission is strongly repudiated by Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner-respondents. It is submitted that object of Section 140 would be defeated if the Tribunal is required to hold regular trial in the same manner as is necessary for adjudicating the claim petition under Section 110 of the Act. 6. This submission is strongly repudiated by Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner-respondents. It is submitted that object of Section 140 would be defeated if the Tribunal is required to hold regular trial in the same manner as is necessary for adjudicating the claim petition under Section 110 of the Act. It is stated that the Tribunal on the basis of the materials produced, if prima-facie satisfied that the accident was caused due to negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and the said accident has caused death of a person and that the vehicle is covered by a valid policy award interim maintenance for the subsistence of the bereaved family. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Pe¬rused the materials available on record. Though Mr. Sinha relied upon number of decisions, but then this Court fmds that the same are not very much relevant for the purpose of adjudication of this case. It is not in dispute that Muralidhar Rout succumbed to the injuries caused in a motor vehicular accident caused by the offending vehicle and a claim application filed under Section 166 of the M.V Act is pending. Section 140 of the M.V Act deals with liability to pay compensation in cases, on the principle of no fault. It stipulates that when death or permanent disablement of any person has resulted from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle, the owner of the vehicle shall be liable to any compensation in respect of such death or disablement in accordance with provisions of the said Section. 8. In consonance with Section 145 (c) of the M.V. Act, liability accrued under Section 140 is required to be discharged by the Insurance Company subject to other conditions being ful¬filled. Admittedly the main proceeding under Section 166 of the M. V. Act was pending. If it is ultimately found that the Insur¬ance Company is not liable due to breach of condition of policy and/or due to any other irregularity or illegalities, necessary direction can be issued by the Tribunal for reimbursement of the same from the owner of the offending vehicle and such direction can be executed under the procedure contemplated by the act, by instituting certificate proceeding against the owner and by attaching the property if necessary. Therefore without entering into the arena of controversy with regard to the liability of the Insurance Company to pay the amount under Section 140 of the M.V Act, as the right of the Insurance Company to recover the said amount from the owner in case it is ultimately decided that the Insurance Company is not liable is protected. As would be evident from the direction issued by the Tribunal, 80% of the interim compensation awarded under Section 140 of the Act by the Tribunal towards no fault liability is to be kept. in ftxed deposit in any Nationalised Bank for a period of six years, thus hardly any amount is disbursed to the petitioner-respondents so as to cause prejudice to the appellant-Insurance Company. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order and direct the Tribunal to dispose of the main petition as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months, if the same is still pending. The Misc. Appeal is accordingly disposed of. Misc. Appeal disposed of.