Point in Issue :
Maintainability of application under Section 140 of the Act.

H.K.Rathod, J.—Heard learned Advocate Mr. Hasmukh Thakkar on behalf of the appellant United India Insurance Co. Ltd. And Mr. V.B. Malik, learned Advocate for the respondents claimants in each appeal. These First Appeals are admitted on 13.7.2006. Today, with consent of both the learned advocates, taken up for final hearing.

2. In the present First Appeals, the appellant has challenged the order passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in MACP filed by the respondents claimants under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The accident occurred on 1st October, 2004 at about 3.30 at Nava Mota sim near Garnala and police complaint was lodged against the driver at Khedbrahma Police Station. Respondents had received injury in the said accident, therefore, application was filed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming amount on No Fault Liability. Tribunal has issued notice to the appellant insurance company, driver and owner of the vehicle in question. All the three respondents filed their respective replies before the Claims Tribunal. Thereafter, the Tribunal has heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties. Application was made for interim compensation claimed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 based on No Fault Liability. Respondent has produced panchanama, insurance policy, RC Book of the vehicle, injury certificate and certificate of permanent disability and relevant X-Ray on record. At the time when the application was heard by the Claims Tribunal, the Insurance Company had not raised contention that against the Insurance Company, such application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is not maintainable. The Insurance Company has also not raised objection against having insurance policy of the vehicle in question, means, not disputed insurance policy of the vehicle in question. Therefore, the Claims Tribunal has considered relevant provisions of Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and after examining the relevant documents produced on record by the respondents, came to the conclusion that the respondents are entitled for compensation based on No Fault Liability being interim measure. Therefore, accordingly, order was passed by the Claims Tribunal against all the respondents namely driver, owner and insurance company of the vehicle in question. The Tribunal has also directed to invest 70 per cent of the said amount in Nationalized Bank in Fixed Deposit Receipt and 30% of the amount is ordered to be paid to the claimant by account payee cheque. Said order was passed by the Claims Tribunal on 23rd January, 2006. Before the Claims Tribunal, an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was also filed by the claimants. The application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed vide Exhibit 5 before the Claims Tribunal on 30th October, 2004. From one accident, six motor accident claims petitions were filed from MACP No. 1200 of 2004 to 1205 of 2005. Present appeals have been filed by the appellant insurance company against the order passed by the Claims Tribunal below application Exhibit 5 dated 23rd January, 2006. Matter was examined by the Claims Tribunal and thereafter, reasoned order was passed after considering the documents on record not disputed by the advocate for the appellant insurance company. Appellant Insurance company had not raised any contention before the claims tribunal about the liability and had also not raised contention that such application is not maintainable against the Insurance Company. Therefore, the Claims Tribunal has decided the application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on the basis of the documents which are on record and granted the amount of interim compensation on the basis of No Fault Liability with a direction to the appellant insurance company to deposit the said amount before the Claims Tribunal. Thereafter, a purshis was filed by the respondents claimants before