An order for compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is not an appealable order under Section 173 of the Act.

ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J. :- This appeal is directed against an order passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Durgapur (which we shall henceforth describe as "Tribunal"), passed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act in short). The appeal arises out of an application made by the legal representatives of a deceased victim of an accident, and a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand), has been directed to be paid to the claimants.

2. The victim, in this case, one Sanjeeb Kumar Santra had died in a motor accident on 5th August, 2001. Before the Tribunal, death of the victim in the accident and the involvement of the vehicle have been established. The only ground urged against the order of the Tribunal is that at the time of occurrence of the accident, there was no insurance coverage of the vehicle in question.

3. The appellant before us is the Insurance Company and they are seeking to deny their liability to meet the compensation amount as directed by the Tribunal. On behalf of the respondents (claimants), a preliminary point has been taken that the appeal is not maintainable as an order under Section 140 of the Act is not an appealable order.

4. On the point of insurance coverage, the case of the appellant is that the owner of the vehicle had submitted the proposal form on 3rd August, 2001, but the policy was issued with effect from 2.10 p.m. on 6th August, 2001, which was to last till the midnight of 5th August, 2002. The copy of the proposal form was made an exhibit. This proposal form bears signature of the proposer being the owner of the vehicle and the date of the signature is 3rd August, 2001. The payment also appears to have been received on that date. The proposal form carries a statement in a separate box with the heading "Additional questionnaire for motor proposes with a break in coverage" to the effect that the insured had remitted the premium on 4.20 p.m. on 3rd August, 2001 and it was understood and agreed that the Insurance Company has no liability of whatsoever nature for any loss/damage/liability arising out of any accident earlier to zero hour on 6th August, 2001.

5. It appears that this point was canvassed before the Tribunal, but considering the provisions of Section 64VB of the Insurance Act, the learned Tribunal came to a finding that the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation. Before us, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that mere payment of the premium on a particular day automatically does not entail policy coverage from that date, but it is the option of the owner to seek coverage from any date subsequent to payment of premium. He submits that in the present case, he chose coverage of the vehicle from 6th August, 2001, and hence the Insurance Company cannot be saddled with the obligation in respect of an accident which occurred on 3rd August, 2001.

6. In support of his submission that the Insurance Company cannot be saddled with liability for an accident during the period not covered by a policy, he has relied on the following authorities :-

(i) J. Kalaivani v. K. Shivshankar, 2002 (1) TAC 839 (SC);

(ii) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Sita Bai, 2000 (1) TAC 3 (SC) : (AIR 1999 SC 3577);

(iii) New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bhagwati Devi, (1998) 6 SCC 534 : (1999 AIR SCW 4690);

(iv) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunita Rathi, (1998) 1 SCC 365 : (AIR 1998 SC 257);

(v) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lakshmi Pramanik (2000) ACJ 414;

(vi) Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Hamza, 2005 (3) TAC 631 : (2004 AIR - Kant HCR 977) (Karnataka); and

(vii) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Inder Deo Ojha (2003) 3 TAC 14 (All).

7. On the other hand, the learned Advocate for the claimant has mainly argued that an appeal under Section 173 is not maintainable against the order for compensation directed under Section 140 of the Act. He has relied on a decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Maharashtra State Road Transpor