The necessity of safeguarding claimants' rights to interim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, even while disputes regarding insurance policy validity are unresolved.

1.Heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The appellant has challenged the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in M.A.C.P. No.788/2016 by which the Insurance Company was directed to pay the amount of compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 .

3. By the impugned order, the Claims Tribunal has allowed the claim application under the Motor Vehicles Act and directed the appellant to pay jointly and severally the amount of compensation of Rs.25,000/- to respondent No.1 who is the original claimant.

4. The claimant has filed the application for grant of compensation on account of accidental injuries sustained by him in an accident which took place on 08/06/2016 at 9.45 hours on Wardha road, opposite ICICI bank, Nagpur.

5. As per the contention of the claimant, said accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the original respondent No.1 and the vehicle is validly insured with respondent No.2. Therefore, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. It is further contended by the claimant that in the alleged accident his left leg was amputated at thigh and he had sustained grievous injuries which resulted into permanent disablement, therefore, he is entitled for the compensation.

6. To resist the claim of the claimant, Insurance Company denied the entire allegations of the claimant and came with a case that the policy on which claimant has relied upon is fake policy, and therefore, Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation and prayed for exoneration from the liability.

7. After hearing both the sides, learned Tribunal held the appellant-Insurance Company liable to pay compensation and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the amount of Rs.25,000/- under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 .

8. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, present appeal is preferred by the appellant – Insurance Company on the ground that the offending truck was not insured with the appellant – Insurance Company on the date of accident. The policy which is filed on record is a fake policy and learned Tribunal erroneously fasten the liability to pay no fault compensation on the Insurance Company. In fact, the Insurance Company is not at all liable to pay compensation as offending vehicle was not at all insured with the Insurance Company on the date of accident. Therefore, prayed for quashing and setting aside the said order.

9. Heard Shri Dipwani, learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri S.R. Charpe, for the respondent No.1.

10. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Insurance policy on which the claimant is relied upon is a fake policy, and therefore, the Insurance Company is not at all liable to pay compensation.

11. On the other hand learned Counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that admittedly the original claimant is a third party, and therefore, claimant is entitled to receive the compensation, and therefore, there is no merit in the appeal. He further submitted that nothing is placed on record to show that it is a fake policy. Therefore, appeal is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

12. Heard rival submissions of the parties. The short point arise for consideration is whether the Claims Tribunal had justified in allowing the application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 .

13. Perused the application and the record submitted along with appeal.

14. There is no dispute that the vehicle truck bearing No.MH-40- Y-8165 is involved in t