1. Heard submissions at the Bar. This appeal by legal representatives of the deceased victim of the Motor vehicle accident Ramprakash Mishra questions the legality of the impugned judgment and order dated passed by the Learned Member of the Motor Accident Tribunal, Nagpur in the proceedings of the Claim Petition No.415 of 1995. Under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act the ‘No fault” liability claim was made for compensation in the sum of Rs 25,000/-. On 19.12.1995 compensation was granted accordingly together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. The insurer Company deposited the sum of Rs 29,750/-. The Claim Petition No.415 of 1995 was dismissed and the Tribunal directed the refund of the amount from the claimants to the Insurer.

2. It is case of the appellants that the death of the deceased Ramprakash Mishra, aged about 45 years of age the business as stone crusher, had occurred as a result of the Motor vehicle accident when driver of the offending Truck registration No.MWY/7567, driving the same rashly and negligently caused the accident when the deceased Ramprakash was driving his scooter from Umrer towards Nagpur, the Truck gave him a dash. In the result Ramprakash fell down and went in coma as he was injured severely on his head. The injured was taken to the Central India Institute of Medical Sciences at Bajaj Nagar, Nagpur and received medical treatment till he succumbed to the injuries on 02.11.1994. The Truck was owned by Late Shri Rudresh Tiwary and insured by the National Insurance Company policy covering the date of the accident. The case of the appellant remained uncontroverted by the opponents to the Claim Petition. The Tribunal failed to appreciate that the appellants could not have been blamed for mentioning incorrect registration number of the offending motor vehicle by the Police in the FIR and the Spot Panchnama, particularly when no evidence was led by the Opponent parties to the Claim Petition. The medical officer attending the injured in the Hospital had failed to inform the Police of the accident. The appellants who were in a state of shock could not inform the Police about the accident in time. Appellants could not have been blamed under the circumstances for the clerical mistake or error by the Police mentioning the Truck number as MWY-4765 by the Police lapse in not mentioning properly the correct name of the victim and the registration number of the Truck which caused the accident.

3. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that according to law under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, they were not obliged to plead and prove that the death of the victim of the accident was due to any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the Owner of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal ought not to have ordered refund of the amount paid or deposited towards ‘no fault’ liability.

4. Chapter 10 with Sections 140 to 144 provides for interim compensation on ‘No Fault’ Basis. According to this provision Rs. 50,000/- is to be given to the kith and kin of the deceased and Rs. 25,000/- to the grievously injured victim. The compensation under Section 140 is made payable if prima facie evidence of following is available;

(i) Accident by the offending vehicle;

(ii) Offending vehicle being insured;

(iii) Death or grievous injuries have been caused.

5. Unlike the main claim petition, negligence is not required to be proved under Section 140 of the Act and this interim compensation is not refundable even if negligence is not proved in the main claim application. Under Chapter 10 for interim award insurer is not even permitted to raise any defence relating to negligence of applicant or permitted under Section 149 of Motor Vehicle Act. But, if ultimately it is held that insurer is not liable to pay compensation to the victim then the insurer company can receive or recover the compensation already paid by it from owner and/or driver of the offending Motor Vehicle concerned .

6. The legal position stated above i