Back
1992 Supreme(MP) 864
1 (1994) ACC 565
K.L. Issrani, J.
Renuka Bai And Ors.
vs
Jai Prakash Sethy And Ors.
Decided on : 7 December, 1992
An order passed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act is an interim order and not revisable under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SECTION 140, 145(C), 147(1) - REVISION PETITION - NOT MAINTAINABLE - INSURANCE COMPANY LIABLE TO PAY INTERIM COMPENSATION - LIABILITY JOINT AND SEVERAL.
Fact of the Case:
The claimant filed a revision petition against the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur, refusing to allow his application for interim compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal had ordered the owner of the truck to pay interim compensation, but absolved the Insurance Company from liability.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the revision petition was not maintainable in light of the Full Bench decision of Gaya Prasad v. Suresh Kumar, which held that no appeal lies under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against an order of compensation for "no fault liability" passed under Section 140 of the Act.
Issues: Whether the revision petition is maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the order passed under Section 140 is an interim order and not revisable under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court also held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay interim compensation under Section 140 of the Act, as the liability of the Insurance Company is joint and several with the owner of the vehicle.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed.
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 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. Shri Gulab Sohane, learned Counsel for the non-applicant. No. 2 Oriental Insurance Company appears. None appeared for oilier 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 Shri R.G. Rai, Advocate, but he was absent when the case was heard finally.
4. Shri 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 Gaya Prasad v. Suresh Kumar 1992 MPLJ 485 and also subsequently in Dimple v. Lajja Ram and 3 Ors. 1992 (1) MPJR 372. 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 (supra) is a majority judgment of two Judges Dr. T.N. Singh J. and K.M. 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 applicant also placed reliance on an earlier Division Bench decision of this Court in Krishna Gopal v. Dattatraya 1971 JLJ 903 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 applicant is that in case it is held that the order 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 him. The learned Counsel for the Insurance Company refutes the argument of the learned Counsel for the applicant 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 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 she 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 Misc. Appeal 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 Oriental Insurance Co. v. Preetamlal 1989 MPLJ 580 : 1989 ACJ 1129 would no longer hold good and that decision is overruled.
7. Dr. T.N.
