Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2360 (BOM)

National Insurance Company Limited v. Udhao

2013-11-20

A.P.BHANGALE

body2013
Judgment 1. Heard. 2. First Appeal No.859/2012 arose out of the judgment and award dated 28.2.2011 passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.64/2006, whereby the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandrapur allowed the application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act and awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- along with simple interest @ Rs. 7% per annum from the date of application till its realization. 3. First Appeal No.861/2012 arose out of the judgment and award dated 28.2.2011 passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.65/2006, whereby the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandrapur allowed the application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act and awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- along with simple interest @ Rs. 7% per annum from the date of application till its realization. 4. It is not in dispute that both the awards under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act arose out of the same incident of accident. In the case registered as MACP No.64/2006, victim Bayabai w/o Shrawan Butle a labourer, aged about 40 years, while travelling by truck bearing No. MH-34/A-6890 on 20.12.2005 met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. There is no dispute about the ownership of the offending motor vehicle as also the same was insured with the appellant. The contention that the victim was not authorized to travel in the truck (offending motor vehicle) as a passenger, can be considered when the main petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is decided on merits on the basis of the evidence. At the interim stage, when the order under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act was passed, it is the liability of the insurer to pay compensation during the pendency of the main petition, without any fault on the part of the insurer or driver of the vehicle because of which the accident occurred. 5. In the case which is registered as MACP No.65/2006, victim Lilabai w/o Udhao Butle, aged about 35 years, was also a labourer, who died in the accident, caused by the offending motor vehicle bearing No. MH-34/A-6890. It appears from the impugned judgment and award that the truck was insured with the appellant under the insurance policy on the date of accident and because of the use of the offending motor vehicle, the accident had occurred. 6. It appears from the impugned judgment and award that the truck was insured with the appellant under the insurance policy on the date of accident and because of the use of the offending motor vehicle, the accident had occurred. 6. Under these circumstances, the impugned judgments and awards passed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be blamed, when the motor accident had admittedly occurred due to the use of the motor vehicle, which was covered under the insurance policy on the date of incident. The insurer, therefore, cannot escape from its liability under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is open for the insurer to contest the main petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act on merits. 7. Hence, both the first appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs. 8. The Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandrapur shall endeavour to dispose of the main petition as early as possible. 9. The amount deposited, if any, in this Court be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement thereof to the claimants.