The main legal point established is that an interim award under Section 140 of the M.V. Act is subject to final orders, and the liability of the insurer is contingent on the final award.

JAYANT NATH, J.

1. By the present petition the petitioner seeks to impugn the order dated 31.5.2012 passed by the Tribunal dismissing the application of the petitioner for directions to refund of Rs. 50,000 plus interest totalling Rs. 55,162 paid as per the order of the Tribunal dated 27.7.2006 in exercise of power under Section 140 of the M.V. Act on account of an alleged accident that had taken place on 30.4.1999 wherein it was alleged that Smt. Gasna Devi had expired in the said accident. Subsequently the Tribunal passed an award on 25.2.2012 holding that the death of Smt. Gasna Devi was not as a consequence of any motor accident. The Tribunal held that she died due to natural causes inasmuch as she was seriously ill and was being transported in an Ambulance from GTB Hospital to Jeevan Nursing Home. In the accident that had taken place, she and other occupants of the ambulance did not receive any injuries. She was shifted to Jeevan Nursing Home in a separate vehicle and succumbed because of her illness and not because of her injuries.

2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner at the outset submits that he may be allowed to amend the petition and in the prayer clause he would like to add that apart from the order dated 31.5.2012 he also challenges the order dated 27.7.2006 by which the Tribunal directed the petitioner to pay the compensation of Rs. 50,000 under Section 140 of the M.V. Act. The prayer is allowed.

3. Against the award of the Tribunal dated 25.2.2012, an appeal was filed before this Court by the claimants being MAC. APP. 520/2012 which has also been dismissed on 21.11.2014 upholding the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal.

4. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that in view of the dismissal of the appeal and the award attaining finality, the petitioner is entitled to refund of Rs. 55,162 which was paid pursuant to order of the Tribunal on 27.7.2006 in exercise of powers under Section 140 of the M.V. Act. He relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Jeetu Ram & Ors., II (1988) ACC 612 (SC). He also submits that a perusal of order dated 27.7.2006 would show that the award passed by the Tribunal for a sum of Rs. 50,000 was an interim order. He submits that the interim award would necessarily be subject to final orders.

5. The judgment in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Jeetu Ram & Ors. (supra), is related to a case where in exercise of powers under Section 92A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 the Tribunal had directed the Insurance Company to pay the appropriate sum to the extent of Rs. 15,000 in the case of death and Rs. 7,500 in the case of permanent disablement. Ultimately the Tribunal came to a conclusion that under the policy of insurance the insurer is not liable to pay compensation. However, it held that the amount payable under Section 92 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has to be borne by the insurer and the owner would not be liable to pay the said amount. The Supreme Court reversed this direction which was also upheld by the High Court.

6. The Supreme Court in para 2 held as follows:

"2. On a close scrutiny of the aforesaid provisions, we do not find anything contained therein which would suggest that the liability which accrues under the provisions of Section 92A has to be borne by the insurer even if it is ultimately held that under the policy of insurance the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation in question. In our considered opinion the Tribunal and the High Court have misread the aforesaid provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. In the aforesaid premises the impugned judgment of the Tribunal and High Court cannot be sustained so far as it relates to the liability of the insurer arising under Sections 92A and 92B of the Act. These appeals are allowed. The insurer having paid the amount under the aforesaid provisions is entitled to get it reimbursed from the owner."

7. In any case reference may als