Judgment Appellants have filed this appeal questioning the order passed below Exh.6 by the learned M.A.C.T. Jalgaon in M.A.C.P.No.556/2009, dated 24/12/2010. 2. Admit. 3. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels for the parties. Also perused the order impugned and the record produced alongwith this appeal. 4. Record shows that husband of appellant no.1 and father of appellants no.2 and 3 Jagatrao met with an accident on 21/10/2009 and succumbed to injuries on the spot. The accident was reported in Dharangaon Police Station, Dist. Jalgaon and accordingly CR No.180/2009 was registered initially against the unknown vehicle and later on during the investigation, the name of the driver, owner of the vehicle were revealed. Accordingly subsequent statements were also recorded. It appears that the driver of the vehicle, i.e. respondent no.1 was absconding for 20 days after the accident and then surrendered before police. Due to the accident, claimants have filed M.A.C.P. 55/2009 u/s. 166 of The Motor Vehicle Act, praying for compensation in the sum of Rs.10,00,000/-in which an application for interim relief was moved at Exh.6 u/s. 140 of The Motor Vehicle Act. After service of notice/summons, respondent no.1 driver of the vehicle, respondent no.2 owner of the vehicle so also the Insurance Company/respondent no.3 have filed their say. They have admitted the accident, so also the result of the accident, but according to them, the driver of the vehicle was not at fault, but the accident had occurred due to negligent driving of the victim Jagatrao. In the W.S. filed by the Insurance Company, they have taken all the possible defence as available under the Motor Vehicle Act including denial of the accident, so also denial of the involvement of the offending vehicle insured with the Insurance Company. 5. After hearing the respective learned counsels, learned M.A.C.T. Jalgaon had rejected the application filed u/s. 140 of The Motor Vehicle Act, which order is impugned in this appeal. 6. Perusal of the order impugned, particularly from the observations made in para no.5, it reveals that 20 days after lodging of the FIR, statement of the 3 eye witnesses as well as respondents no.1 and 2 were recorded and in view of this fact, it was observed in para no.6 of the order that the involvement of the offending vehicle in questions seems to be highly doubtful, hence rejected the application. 7. 7. Considering the submissions across the bar, following points arise for my consideration : 1) Whether the findings recorded by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Jalgaon while rejecting the application u/s. 140 of The Motor Vehicle Act, are erroneous ? 2) What order ? 8. As to point no.1 : Much stress is given by the learned counsel for respondent no.3 on the fact that in the FIR lodged immediately after the occurrence of the accident, number of the offending vehicle was not mentioned. Much stress is given that the submissions of the eye witness were recorded after the span of 20 days, i.e. after the arrest of driver and owner of the vehicle in question. Still the fact remains that the respondents no.1 and 2 have categorically admitted in their written statement that at the time of accident the offending vehicle in question was driven by respondent no.1, which is owned by respondent no.2, and insured with respondent no.3. In this accident, the motor cycle rider i.e. Jagatrao succumbed to injuries. Even though the stand is taken not only by the respondents no.1 and 2, but also by the Insurance Company that at the material time, deceased Jagatrao was driving his motor cycle negligently and hence the claimants are not entitled for any compensation. 9. Considering the text of section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, at the time of deciding the application, the point required to be considered that, 1) whether the death or disablement is the offshoot of the motor vehicle accident ? 2) If the death or disablement is the result of the accident, then whether the owner of the offending vehicle had insured the offending vehicle ? and 3) If these 2 ingredients are satisfied, then while deciding the application u/s. 140 of The Motor Vehicle Act, the Tribunal need not enter into the question that who is at fault. 10. From the submissions given by the respondents no.1 and 2 in their written statement, in uncertain words, they have admitted that death of deceased Jagatrao was caused in the vehicle accident, which vehicle was driven by respondent no.1, owned by respondent no.2 and insured with respondent no.3. This admission prima facie satisfy the ingredients on which the claim petition was filed. This admission prima facie satisfy the ingredients on which the claim petition was filed. Considering the facts which were brought on record, the Tribunal is not expected to suspect about the conduct of the driver and owner of the vehicle to draw the inference that the claim petition is filed by the claimants by joining hands with them. It appears that the basic principles on which the claim petition was filed, was not considered by the Tribunal, which resulted in rejecting the application, which itself is an erroneous finding and required to be quashed and set aside and hence finding is recorded to the point no.1 in the affirmative. 11. As to point no.2 : As an affirmative finding is recorded to point no.1, then the order impugned is required to be quashed and set aside and hereby modified by allowing the application filed by the claimants u/s. 140 of The Motor Vehicle Act. 12. In the result, appeal succeeds. Accordingly appeal is allowed. No order as to costs. 13. It is hereby made clear that the Trial Court not to influence with these observations while deciding the main motor accident claim petition.