An order passed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is not revisable by the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

K.L. Issrani, J.

1. The present revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is against the order dated 15.9.1992 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur, in the Motor Vehicles Case No. 36 of 1992, refusing to allow the application of the claimant applicant under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act for interim compensation.

2. In this case, the non-applicant No. 3, Rajendra Singh, who is the owner of the truck, has been ordered to pay interim compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to the applicant. But the submission of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that the non-applicant No. 2, insurance company, is also liable to pay, which has been wrongly absolved by the lower court.

3. A show cause notice was issued, Mr. Gulab Sohane, learned Counsel for the non-applicant No. 2, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., appeals. None appeared for other non-applicants. It seems that the aggrieved party, i.e., the non-applicant No. 3, Rajendra Singh, has not filed any revision petition against the impugned order. In this revision, the non-applicant No. 3 is represented by Mr. R.G. Rai, Advocate, but he was absent when the case was heard finally.

4. Mr. Gulab Sohane, learned Counsel for the non-applicant No. 2, insurance company, has submitted that the present revision of the applicant is not maintainable as held in a Full Bench decision of this Court in Goya Prasad v. Suresh Kumar 1992 ACJ 200 (MP) and also subsequently in Dimple v. Lajjaram 1992 ACJ 967 (MP). The parties have addressed on merits also. But in case the revision is held to be not maintainable, it will be futile to go into the merits except casually.

5. The Full Bench decision of Gaya-Prasad v. Suresh Kumar 1992 ACJ 200 (MP), is a majority judgment of two judges, Dr. T.N. Singh, J. and KM. Pandey, J., Justice R.C. Lahoti dissenting. It has been argued by the learned Counsel for the applicant that this judgment prohibits non-maintainability of the appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the owner, driver and the insurance company and not by the claimant. The learned Counsel for the applicants also placed reliance on an earlier Division Bench decision of this Court in Krishan Gopal v. Dattatrya 1971 ACJ 372 (MP), in which the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal was held to be a civil court and the order passed by it was held revisable under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code. The other difficulty and apprehension expressed by the learned Counsel for the applicants is that in case it is held that the cider is not revisable then he has a very limited scope under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the claimant will suffer if no interim compensation is paid to her. The learned Counsel for the insurance company refutes the argument of the learned Counsel for the applicants and submits that the covering note obtained by the owner from the insurance company was by committing fraud on the insurance company. The payment of premium on the policy was made later. He supports the order passed by the Claims Tribunal.

6. Two questions were referred to the Full Bench in two separate appeals. In the present case, the question No. 1 in M.A. No. 64 of 1991 is only relevant which is as under:

Whether the insurer and/or the owner/driver of the offending motor vehicle or vehicles against whom an order of compensation is passed in terms of the provisions of Section 140, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has a right of appeal against that order under Section 173 of the Act?

This question has been finally answered as per majority judgment as under:

First question arising out of M.A. No. 64 of 1991 is answered, as per majority opinion, in the negative. No appeal is maintainable under Section 173, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against an order of compensation for 'no fault' liability, passed under Section 140 of the said Act. Law laid down to the contrary in Pritamlal's case 1989 ACJ 1129 (MP), would no longer hold good and that decision is overruled.

7. Dr. T.N.