1. This order will dispose of 20 Civil Misc. 1st Appeals, given in the title of the order.

2 The Back drop of the facts which have given rise to these appeals is that : on 13-5-1987 at about 3. 30 P. M. vehicle No ; 4077 JKO was involved in an accident resulting in the death of 15 and injuries to a number of other passengers. The heirs of the deceased as well as the injured preferred different claim petitions before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Jammu. The claimants also filed petitions U/s 9-A of the Motor Vehicle Act (hereinafter called the Act) claiming compensation on the basis of no fault liability. The petitions were resisted & the Insurance Company took the stand that it was not liable as the conditions of the policy stood violated and therefore it could not be fastened with any liability under Section 92-A of the Act. The Tribunal on the basis of the material on the record found that the offending vehicle JKQ-4077 stood insured with the Insurance Company. It also opined that the objection raised by the Insurance Company could be considered while dealing with the petition on merits. The Tribunal granted the applications under Sec. 92-A of the Act and awarded a fixed sum of Rs I5000/-to the heirs of the deceased for the death of the passengers and Rs. 7500/- as compensation to each of the injured person who suffered permanent disability. The Insurance Company was to pay the entire compensation within one month from the date of the order against which it has preferred these appeals.

3 On behalf of the claimants -respondents, their learned counsel appearing as Caveators submitted that an order under section 92-A is not appeal able under section 110-D of the Act. Mr. Thakur learned counsel for the appellant has on the other hand, submitted that the order made under section 29-A is in the nature of an interim award & that an appeal against such an award is maintainable under section 110-D of the Act. He cited judgments of various High Court to support his submission On merits. Mr. Thakur submitted that it was obligatory for the Tribunal to decide the objections raised on behalf of the Insurance Company regarding he violation of the terms & conditions of the policy of insurance by reason on the transfer of the vehicle without permission of the Insurance Company and without holding any enquiry into the correctness or otherwise of these objections, the Tribunal could not direct the appellant to make payment. According to Mr. Thakur the Tribunal was not justified to postpone this enquiry and at the same time fasten the liabilitey on the Insurance Company under section 2-A of the Act.

In so far as the objections with regard to the maintainability of the appeals are concerned, the controversy need not detain me in this case, because, for what follows, I find that on merits it is not a fit case which calls for interference by this Court.

5 That an accident took place on 13-5-1987at about3-30 P M. is not disputed. It also is not disputed that the vehicle involved in the accident was JKD-4077. The material on the record also prima facie establishes that the said vehicle stood insured with the appellant Insurance Company. The factum of the accident was not disputed by the owner of the vehicle either. The only question, therefore, which requires consideration is whether the Tribunal was justified to postpone the consideration of the objections raised by the insurance Company in terms of section 96 (2) of the Act for being dealt with while making the final award under section 110 of the Act. If the answer is in the affirmative then no fault can be found with the interim award, otherwise the interim award would require to be set aside. According to Mr. Thakur the objections raised by the Insurance Company have to be dealt with not only while mak

Click Here to Read the rest of this document