1. On 12th December, 2007 this Court issued a notice for final disposal at admission stage. Submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties were heard on 14th February, 2008 and the judgment was reserved. Today, the appeal is kept for dictation of the judgment.

2. The present first appeal raises interesting questions regarding the scope of adjudication in a claim petition filed under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. With a view to appreciate the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it will be necessary to refer to the facts of the case in brief.

3. The first to third respondents are the claimants in a petition filed under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 1988). The claim for compensation is on account of death of one Suresh Shetty in an accident involving buses having registration Nos.MH12/CH 4583 and MH12/AR 8985. There is also a claim petition filed by the claimants under section 166 of the said Act of 1988.

4. It is the case of the claimants that on 07th December, 2006 the deceased was traveling by a bus bearing registration No.MH-12/CH-9583 owned by the fourth respondent herein which was insured with the appellant at the relevant time.Though the bus was owned by he fourth respondent it was being run on hire by the fifth respondent i.e the Pune Municipal Transport. The said bus in which the deceased was travelling gave a dash to the other bus bearing registration No.MH-12-AR-8985 involved in the accident which was stationery. The case is that as a result of injuries sustained in the accident the deceased Suresh died.

5. The claim petition was defended by the fifth respondent by filing a reply. The case made out by the fifth respondent is that the bus was owned by the fourth respondent and was insured with the present appellant. It is contended that the fifth respondent had taken bus on hire from the fourth respondent. The contention raised by the appellant insurer in the reply is that though the offending bus was being used by the Pune Municipal Transport, there was no valid permit granted by the Regional Transport Office on the date of the

accident and therefore, in view of the breach of terms and conditions of the policy, the appellant was not liable to satisfy the award which may be made against the owner.

6. The learned Member of the Tribunal allowed the claim petition under section 140 of the said Act of 1988 and held the appellant, fourth and fifth respondents jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- with interest.

7. While passing the impugned judgment and award, the learned Member of the Tribunal referred to the copies of FIR, spot panchnama, inquest panchnama, insurance cover note, post mortem notes etc. The involvement of the bus concerned was not disputed. The learned Member of the Tribunal noted the contention raised by the advocate for the appellant on the basis of the letter of Regional Transport Office, Pune dated 19th June, 2007 that the bus was not having a requisite permit. The learned Member of the Tribunal observed that the controversy whether there was a permit for plying the vehicle can be decided only after evidence is adduced by the parties. The learned Member observed that while deciding a petition under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 it is not necessary to establish any negligence or fault on the part of the owner and driver of the vehicle. The learned Member of the Tribunal held that admittedly the bus was owned by the fourth respondent which was given on hire to the fifth respondent and that the same was insured with the appellant. Therefore, a joint and several award in the

sum of Rs.50,000/-was passed by the Member of the Tribunal against the appellant, fourth and fifth respondents.

8. At this stage it must be stated that the fifth respondent filed an affidavit in reply to the civil application for stay and has placed on record alongwith the reply a copy of a