Interim compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can only be granted if the identity of the vehicle involved in the accident is prima facie established.

Sachin Dwivedi, J.

1. The petitioner's father was run over by a vehicle on A-B Road. The petitioner is the son of deceased Bhagwanlal. A report of the accident was lodged by one Narender Singh, the nephew of deceased Bhagwanlal on 20.7.1992 and the Police investigated the accident.

2. The petitioner preferred a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (here in after called the 'Act'), and also filed an application under Section 140 of the Act for the payment of the interim compensation. Alongwith the application, under Section 140 of the Act, the petitioner is stated to have filed the copy of F.I.R., the spot map, the post-mortem report and the japti panchnama of tanker No. M.P. 08/3736, which is stated to be involved in the accident. A copy of the application filed by respondent No. 2 in the Court of J.M.F.C. for the Superego of the seized truck also filed. The copies of the abovestated documents have also been filed with this petition.

3. The Claims Tribunal while considering the application of the petitioner filed under Section 140 of the Act, found that till that stage, the petitioner did not succeed in prima-facie establishing that it was the seized tanker, which was involved in the accident, and therefore, no interim compensation could be awarded. The learned Tribunal found that the inquiry and the recording of the evidence in that regard would be required and the question would be determined with the final decision. As such, the Tribunal dismissed the application of the petitioner for interim compensation.

4. It is contended by the petitioner's that in view of the decisions of this Court and the clear provisions of Section 140 of the Act, no inquiry was required for awarding interim compensation. I am not convinced of the impact of arguments advanced by the petitioner's Counsel, though there is no dispute about the stated principle.

5. For seeking the interim compensation, the claimant is primarily required to prima facie show that the stated vehicle was involved in the accident resulting in the injury or the death of the deceased. The claimant cannot succeed in seeking interim compensation, unless the identity of the vehicle is prima facie established.

6. The authorities relied upon by the petitioner deal with the different point. In Gaya Prasad v. Suresh Kumar 1992 JL 143, this Court, relying upon the observations in Mahila Ramdei 1988 JLT 412) found that "Tribunal is to act suo motu under Section 92-A and until the claim envisaged thereunder is decided, it shall have no jurisdiction to proceed further and try the claim petition and adjudicate liability under principle of fault. As held in Shivaji's case, the Tribunal is only required to "satisfy itself" "with respect to the tribune requirement: an accident has arisen out of use of one or more motor vehicles; it has resulted in permanent disablement of the claimant or of death of the person whose legal representatives' claim is to be decided; the owner or owners and the insurer or insurers of the motor vehicle or vehicles involved in accident are held liable."

(Emphasis supplied)

7. In Durga Prasad v. Mahila Ramsakhi 1994(1) WN 74, it was held that the position at the stage of interim award is to be seen only in terms of statutory provisions. In that case the vehicle remained to be a tractor but only the wrong registration number was given in the FIR. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Asha Devi, the correci registration number of the vehicle involved in the accident was given and identity of vehicle was established printa facie. The factum of accident and ownership of vehicle only was denied and this Court, therefore, found that in such situation no enquiry was required and the Tribunal had not committed any irregularity or illegality in passing the interim award.

8. In National Insurance Co., Jabalpur v. Thaghi Singh , there no dispute about the identity of the vehicle/vehicles involved in the accident, and therefore, it was held that the