The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the Motor Vehicles Act in relation to the validity of the insurance policy and the liability of the insurance company to pay compensation.

S.N.Pathak, J.

1. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 16.2.1996 granting compensation of Rs. 50,000 to the claimants-respondents and it was directed to be paid by the appellant (New India Assurance Co. Ltd.).

2. Appellant#25;s lawyer submitted that in the instant case, vehicle in question was ensured with the insurance company on 10.1.1995 from 4 p.m., whereas the accident took place at 12 noon of the aforesaid date. So, the insurance company was not liable to pay any compensation to claimants of the case. In this connection, learned lawyer for the driver of the vehicle in question bearing registration No. BER 8421 (respondent No. 3) submitted that this misc. appeal is not maintainable in view of the fact that it is directed against an order which is not an award within the meaning of sec. 149(7) of the Motor Vehicles Act, Explanation. He further submitted that this misc. appeal was also not maintainable because the appellant did not take leave of the Tribunal to file an appeal. He lastly submitted that the policy commenced on 10.1.1995 and was valid till 9.1.1996. So, the policy will start from zero hour on 10.1.1995 and will continue till 12 p.m. on 9.1.1996. So, the time of occurrence was well covered by the insurance policy.

3. I shall first dispose of the contention that the impugned order did not indicate that it was an award. sec. 168 has laid down that on receipt of an application u/s. 166 of the aforesaid Act, the Tribunal shall proceed to enquire into the claim and after hearing the concerned party specify the amount which shall be paid by the owner or the insurance company or the driver in question. It has further been laid down there that where such an application makes a claim of compensation u/s. 140, Motor Vehicles Act in respect of the death or permanent disablement of any person, such claim under Section 140 of the Act shall be disposed of under Chapter X of the aforesaid Act. So, the award as mentioned u/s. 168 of the Act referred to an amount of compensation which may be final or interim. sec. 140 of the Act has made provision for grant of compensation on the basis of no fault liability of the driver of the vehicle which causes accident. So, interim compensation granted under sec. 140 of the Act will be covered by the word #24;award#25; as mentioned under sec. 168 of the Act. So, the contention of the respondents#25; lawyer that this appeal is not maintainable because the impugned order is not an award, is not sustainable.

4. The next ground on the basis of which this appeal was termed as not maintainable was that the appellant did not take permission from the Tribunal to file this appeal. In this connection, respondents#25; lawyer relied on a decision of Apex Court in Rita Devi V/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2000 ACJ 801 (SC). However, I find that this decision has simply referred to the leave granted by the Claims Tribunal to the insurance company to contest the claim case under Sec. 170 of the Act on the grounds other than statutory ground. When the insurance company seeks to contest the claim case on the ground other than statutory ground under Secs. 147 and 149 of the Act, it has to seek leave of the Tribunal. Appeal is a continuation of the case in the trial court. So once a leave is granted to the insurance company to contest the claim case on the grounds other than statutory ground, the insurance company is entitled to file appeal as well. In the instant case, insurance company had taken objection to the interim award granted by the court below on the basis of statutory bar, the absence of liability which was to the effect that the insurance policy itself did not come in force at the time when the accident took place. So, the insurance company, appellant, was not under any obligation to take leave of the Tribunal either to contest the case in the lower court or to file appeal before this Court. So far the third ground taken by the respondents#25; lawyer, the appellant has re