( 1 ) THESE are cases of permanen t disablement and death of one person due to accident caused whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment" when the driver lost control of the vehicle. Claimants suffering permanent disablement filed applications under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter `the m. V. Act ) and in case of death of one of the occupants of the vehicle, legal heirs preferred claims both under Section 140 and 166 of the M. V. Act. These applications were opposed by the Insurance Company on grounds that the claimants were gratuitous passengers travelling in a goods vehicle, they did not suffer permanent disability, their names were not in the f. I. R. /charge-sheet and nexus with the accident and injuries was not established. However, the Tribunal recording the finding of involvement of the vehicle and injuries to the claimants resulting from the accident, brushed aside the defences of the Insurance Company, holding that they could be decided later on merits. Accordingly claimants were awarded compensation.

( 2 ) AGGRIEVED by these awards, Insurance Company preferred appeals to this Court. Finding unable to agree with the two single Bench judgments of this Court in New India Assurance co. Ltd. Vs. Mithakhan Dinakhan Notiyar (1995 (2) GLR 1111)rendered by J. M. Panchal J. and Mahendrakumar Kalyanjibhai vs. Haresh Bipinchandra Pathak (1998 (2) GLR 1199) by M. S. Shah J. , learned Single Judge (Coram: D. H. Waghela J.), after considering various provisions of the M. V. Act, recorded in paragraph-7 that:"in light of the above discussion, I humbly find myself unable to subscribe to the view taken by this Court (Coram: J. M. Panchal, J.) in 1995 (2) GLR 1111 and (Coram: M. S. Shah, J.) in 1998 (2) GLR 1199 and propose to refer the matter to a larger bench under Rule 5 (1) of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993 with a request to have the appeals listed before a Division Bench or, if thought fit, considering the possibility of dissent, to a larger bench as expeditiously as possible. It is important to have the decision of a larger bench at the earliest in view of pendency of thousands and thousands of claim petitions in the state, the awards in which may be carried in appeal to this Court and the possibility of the procedure being adopted at present by the Claims tribunal being held to be vitiated. The office shall place this matter before the Hon ble the Chief Justice for appropriate orders. "

( 3 ) THIS order was passed on 21. 12. 2005, but it was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench (Coram: Bhawani singh, C. J. and Smt. Abhilasha Kumari J.) while deciding first Appeal No. 133 of 2006 (New India Assurance co. Ltd. Vs. Babubhai Purshottambhai Harijan and others) on 24. 01. 2006. Therefore, it was considered desirable to constitute a Larger bench. This is how these matters are before this Full Bench.

( 4 ) THE question advanced for consideration is `whether application under Section 140 can lie independently or has to be filed with application under Section 166 . In other words, whether in absence of application under Section 166, application under Section 140 is maintainable. If it is held that it is maintainable, Tribunal should allow the Insurance company to raise all defences while dealing with application under Section 140 as if it is under Section 166.

( 5 ) SHRI Vibhuti Nanavati, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that application under Section 140 is not maintainable independent of Section 166, it is interim in nature and compensation has to be adjusted against the award passed on merits under Section 166. It is also contended that while deciding the application under Section 140, defences available to Insurance Company can be raised before the tribunal. In case application under Section 140 is maintainable independent of Section 166, the same be tried on merits giving opportunity to raise defences available to it and dispose of the same, otherwise, Insu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document