1988 Supreme(MP) 352

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Gulab C. Gupta, J.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Vs.
Bandhan – Respondent
M.A. No. 56 of 1988 (J)
Decided On : 22-04-1988

Headnote:(1) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 – S. 110 – D and 92 A – interim award under S. 92 – A – no appeal lies under S. 110 – D.

       (2) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 – S. 92 and 95 – purpose of S. 92 – A is to award interim maintenance without delay – relationship between insurer and insured cannot be decided before grant of interim award.

        Short Note

       1. This is an appeal against the interim award under section 92 – A of the Motor Vehicle Act making appellant jointly and severally liable to pay the statutory compensation along with the owners and the Driver. The submission of the Learned Counsel for the applicant is that insurance policy does not cover the risk of the type indicated in the claim application and. therefore, the Insurance• Company could not have been made liable. According to him, a bare reference of section 95 of Motor Vehicles Act would be sufficient to justify the submission.

       2. Held: This Court is unable to appreciate the submission. Purpose of S. 92 – A of the Act had been to make available without delay a sum of Rs. 15,000/ – in cases of accidental death. The purpose has not been to delay the payment of amount any further. In case the relationship between the Insurer and insured has to be decided before passing order under section 92 – A, the matter will be delayed further. That appears to be the reason why the point has not been decided by the Trial Court. After all, it is a matter of adjustment of equities, which will be decided at the end of the Trial and if at that stage it is found that there had been other breach of condition of policy or the policy did• not cover such risk, the Court will pass necessary orders protecting the interests of the appe11ant. It was never intended to provide two appeals in one claim• case. Under the circumstances rushing to this Court at• this stage is really an attempt at subverting a good Law. The judicial process should not be a party to such cases, particularly when no prejudice is likely to be caused to the appellant in the final adjudication.

       3. It was further submitted that since an order u/s 92 – A of the Act amounts to an award, the appellant has a right to file an appeal u/s 110 – D of the Act. It is not necessary to decided this matter finally at this stage. Admittedly, the argument appears to be misconceived as it will in the final analysis provide two appeals in one claim case and cause further delay in settling claims, which had not been the intention of the Legislature.

       Appeal dismissed.