The liability of the insurance company under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act is of a summary nature, and the company is liable to pay the awarded amount.

1. - These miscellaneous appeals have been filed under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the common order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Banswara dated January 4, 1989 granting R.s. 15,000/- in each case under Section 92-A of the Act. The facts of the cases may be summarised thus.

2. Respondent-claimants filed petitions under Section 110-B of the Act against Man-singh driver (respondent No. 3), Poonam Chand owner (respondent No. 4) and the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (appellant) with the allegations, in short, that the bus No. RSH 1685, owned by Poonam Chand, was being driven by Mansingh driver on April 10, 1988 in Khargoti valley. It was insured with the appellant company. It met with an accident at 3 p.m. on that day. It was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver Mansingh. Shankar, Panchu, Daludi, Mavji, Ramesh, Jeevli and Prabhu were sitting in it and they died. In each case, application under Section 92-A of the Act was moved. After hearing the parties, the learned Tribunal awarded र 15,000/- in each case by its common order dated January 4, 1989 which has been challenged in these miscellaneous appeals.

3. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the order is wholly void and illegal, the insurance company is not liable, the driver was not holding a valid licence, the bus was being plied in contravention of the conditions of the permit and it was overloaded.

4. There is no force in any of these contentions. It has been held by this court in Narendra Singh v. Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. 1987 ACJ 790 (Rajasthan) , that the insurance company is liable to pay the amount awarded under Section 92-A of the Act. Various other decisions of this court holding this view have been mentioned in para No. 7 of the decision.

5. At this stage, various defences open to the insurance company cannot be looked into. Order under Section 92-A of the Act is of a summary nature. It does not contemplate any enquiry before passing an order under it. Reference to New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Minguel Lourenco Correia 1986 ACJ 646 (Bombay) , Oriental Fire and General Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Aleixo Fernandes 1986 ACJ 1137 (Bombay), Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sitla Parsad 1985 ACJ 842 (P&H) , Narendra Singh v. Oriental Fire and Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. 1987 ACJ 790 (Rajasthan ) and Babban Tiwari v. Usha Ranjan Chakraborty 1987 ACJ 863 (Gauhati) , may be made here. Chapter VII-A of the Act has an overriding effect. As such there is no force in these appeals.

6. Consequently, the appeals are summarily dismissed.Revision dismissed.

*******