Proceedings under section 140 of the MV Act are summary and provide immediate relief without questioning fault. Findings in such proceedings are not conclusive and do not preclude raising defenses in composite proceedings under section 166 of the MV Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. This Appeal is filed for challenging the judgment and award dated 15th February 2021 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Mumbai in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 1618 of 2018. By this impugned judgment and award, Application filed below Exhibit 2 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 1618 of 2018 under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (“the MV Act”) is allowed by directing payment of interim compensation of Rs. 25,000/-.

2. It is the case of the Appellant that the insurance policy concerned in the claim Application was never issued by the insurance company. It is submitted on behalf of the Appellant that specific contention raised by the insurance company was that insurance policy was a fake policy. Thus, the Tribunal ought not to have allowed the interim compensation under section 140 of the MV Act.

3. The impugned Judgment records that the claimant suffered permanent disability due to road accident occurred on 23rd March 2018, which involved a bike and a car. The claimant was walking alongside the road at the time of accident. The bike involved in the accident was owned by Respondent no. 2 and the same was insured with the Appellant insurance company. The car involved in the accident was owned by Respondent no. 3 and the same was insured with Respondent no. 4. The impugned Judgment further records that Appellant insurance company opposed the Application of the claimant by filing written statement and denied the involvement of motorbike in the accident and further also denied that the claimant suffered any permanent disability. Appellant insurance company disputed the contract of insurance by pleading that the insurance policy of the bike was fake.

4. Perusal of the impugned judgment and award shows that the Tribunal has specifically dealt with the contention raised by the Appellant insurance company that the insurance policy was a fake policy. This particular objection is considered by the Tribunal in paragraph 6 of the impugned judgment and has specifically observed that the case, whether the policy is forged or otherwise is a matter of merit. It is further observed that policy is certified to be true copy by the police and it is also observed that name of the opposite party finds place in the policy and the period of policy also covers the date of accident. With these observations, contention of the Appellant with respect to the policy being fake is not accepted for the purpose of grant of Application under section 140 of the MV Act.

5. The Tribunal relied upon a certificate of Dr. Khanna produced along with list at Exhibit 20 and recorded a finding that the claimant suffered partial permanent disability up to 58%. Considering the nature of injury and the manner in which it was treated, the Tribunal held that there was partial permanent disability. Considering the nature of injuries and the record produced with respect to permanent disability up to 58%, Application was allowed thereby directing the Appellant and Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 (opponents in motor accident claim petition) to pay jointly and severally interim compensation of Rs. 25000/- to the Respondent No. 1 (Claimant).

6. I have perused the impugned judgment and award as well as grounds in the First Appeal. I do not find any merit with respect to the grounds raised in the Appeal and arguments made with respect to the policy being fake. Except for raising a contention that the policy is fake, no material or evidence is produced on record to show that the policy is a fake policy. Perusal of the judgment of the Tribunal do not show that the Appellant produced office copies of the policies issued by the concerned branch on the relevant date, to show that no such policy (relied upon by the claimant) was issued on that day. Even in the present Appeal, the Appellant has not come out with the case that any such record was produced before the Tribunal. Even in this Appeal no such material is produced.

7. Proceedings under section 140 of the M