In order to clothe the Tribunal with jurisdiction to make an order under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it is essential that basic factors must exist, including an accident arising out of a motor vehicle, death/disablement resulting from the accident, a claim against the owner/insurer of the vehicle, and legal representation in the case of death.

Devindcr Gupta, J—The order passed on 22nd May, 1990 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal 01), Mandi, Kullu and Lahaul Spiti Districts at Mandi, H. P. directing the appellants to deposit Rs 25,000 under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Act No. 59 of 1988), (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is under challenge in this appeal.

2. One Nika Ram expired in a fatal accident. On 11th April, 1990, Respondents No. 1 to 4, claiming to be the widow and minor children, preferred a claim petition under section 166 of the Act before the Tribunal. Notices were directed to be issued to the appellants as also to Respondent No. 5 for 22nd May, 1990 It is the appellants case that notices were received a few days prior to the date fixed in the case, which was not accompanied by any copy of the petition. The appellants put in appearance through their Counsel on /*nd May, 1990, on which date they were not aware of the facts or particulars of the case or the claim laid by Respondents No. 1 to 4. They had also no knowledge as to the particulars of the accident or about the claimants. Respondent No. 5, who had been arrayed as Driver of the vehicle, had not been served. While adjourning the case to 23rd June, 1990 for the Drivers service through affixation, an order was passed directing the appellants to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000 to the claimants/respondents No. 1 to 4 under no fault liability under section 140 of the Act on or before the next date of hearing. Claimants/respondents No. 1 to 4 were also directed to furnish particulars as regards their respective ages, post-mortem report, income certificate of the deceased, copy of F.I R and the expenditure incurred for treatment etc. Feeling aggrieved against the said order, the appellants preferred this appeal contending that the order is patently wrong and without jurisdiction. The Tribunal has erred in passing the order in a mechanical manner, without satisfying himself as to whether the requirements of section 140 of the Act had been fulfilled or not

3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The order which the Court below passed on 22nd May, 1990 is as follows ; "22-5-1990 ;—Shri Hament Kapoor, Advocate Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Satish Vaidya, Advocate Counsel for Respondents No. 1 and 2. Issue summons to respondent No. 3 for 23-6-1990. He be served through affixation in case personal service is not effected. The respondents are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000 to the petitioners under section 140 of M. V. Act on or before 23-6-1990. The petitioners should furnish the following documents to (illegible) No. 1 and 2.

1. Copy of age certificate.

2. Copy of Post-mortem report.

3. Copy of Income Certificate.

4. Copy of F. I. R.

5. Copies of expenditure incurred for treatment etc.”

4. From perusal of the order, one thing is clear that till the date when the impugned order was passed, the information which the Tribunal sought from the claimants was absolutely lacking. Neither the claimants had placed on record a copy of F. I R., nor any other material by which it could be gathered or ascertained that the person, who was alleged to have died in the fatal accident, had in fact died as a result of an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle. There was also no material on record as to whether the appellants were the owners of the vehicle or whether the vehicle owned by the appellants was involved in any accident. There was also no material on record as to whether the claimants were the legal representatives of the deceased. The Tribunal passed the order before the appellants bad put in its reply or had any information about the particulars of the claim. It appears that the order was passed in favour of the claimants since they bad lodged a claim against the appellant.

5. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in order to clothe the Tribunal with jurisdiction to pass any order under section 140 of the Act, it was