The main legal point established is that 'no fault' liability under Sec. 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act does not require an enquiry into negligence and is a new liability created by statute outside the law of tort.

Usha J.

Challenge in this appeal at the instance of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. is against the interim award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta in O.P.(MV) No. 235/94 granting an amount of Rs. 25,000/- to respondents 1 to 5 under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act as compensation for the death of the husband of 1st respondent, father of respondents 2 to 4 and son of 5th respondent.

2. Certain facts are admitted in this case. An accident happened on 9.1.1994 out of the use of a motor vehicle which resulted in the death of one Ramachandran Pillai, husband of 1st respondent, father of respondents 2 to 4 and son of 5th respondent. It is also admitted that a claim has been put forward by respondents 1 to 5 against the owner of the vehicle impleaded as 1st respondent and insurance company impleaded as 2nd respondent. It is contended by the appellant that no interim award under Sec. 140 can be granted in this case as, according to the appellant, the accident happened due to the negligence on the part of late Ramachandran Pillai who was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. It was also contended that late Ramachandran Pillai was real owner of the vehicle and therefore the claim petition itself is not maintainable.

3. We will first consider the second objection to the interim award viz., late Ramachandran Pillai himself was the owner of the vehicle. Admittedly in the registration certificate 1st respondent before the tribunal is shown as owner of the vehicle. It is also the case of the insurance company that the insurance policy is in the name of the 1st respondent. Except a reference made by the brother-in-law of late Ramachandran Pillai in the first information statement given before the police that two days before the accident Ramachandran Pillai had acquired ownership over the vehicle, there is no material on the basis of which the appellant could contend that the 1st respondent before the Tribunal was not the owner of the vehicle at the time of the accident. The 1 st respondent had not put forward such a contention before the Tribunal. Therefore, we are inclined to take the view that the Tribunal has correctly concluded on the basis of the materials available before it at the time of passing an interim award under Sec. 140 that the 1st respondent before the Tribunal was the owner of the vehicle.

4. Elaborating the first objection the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that if late Ramachandran Pillai was the wrongdoer in the sense that the accident happened due to his negligence, there is no principle of law which would support a claim put forward by his legal heirs for compensation on his, death as a result of the accident. He contended that even the liability cast under Sec. 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 will not ensure to the benefit of the wrongdoers or legal heirs of the wrongdoer. According to the learned counsel, provisions under the section are to be understood in the light of the statement of objects and reasons of the amending Act 47 of 1982, which introduced Sec.92-A under the old Act, which reads as follows:

"Having regard to the nature of circumstances in which road accidents take place, in a number of cases it is difficult to secure adequate evidence to prove negligence. Further, in what are known as 'hit and-run' accidents, by reason of the identity of the vehicle involved in the accident not being known, the persons affected cannot prefer any claims for compensation. It is, therefore, considered necessary to amend the act suitably to secure strict enforcement of road safety measures and also to make, as a measure of social justice, suitable provisions, first, for compensation without proof of fault or negligence on the part of the owner of driver of the vehicle and, secondly, for compensation by way of solatium in cases in which the identity of the vehicle causing an accident is unknown."

In support of the above contention the learne