JUDGMENT
Fakhruddin, J.
1. The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award dated 6.4.1998, passed by 8th Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claim Case No. 47 of 1997, rejecting the application filed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act for grant of ‘no fault liability’.
2. The facts of the case are that on 16.6.1997, at about 10.30 in the night while the appellant was standing with his family members, i.e., his wife Reeta Devi, daughter Sharda and son Diwan near the side of the road for going to his house on a scooter, from Basant Talkies to Morar, at that time from the Morar side a jeep bearing registration No. MPO-7/E, rashly and negligently driven by respondent No. 1 Satish Kumar, owned by respondent No. 2 Harcharan and insured with respondent No. 3, came and dashed as a result of which the appellant, his wife and daughter sustained serious injuries.
3. The injured persons were immediately admitted to the Casualty Department of Madhav Dispensary by the persons who were present at the spot, at the time of accident. It is stated that during treatment, the wife of the appellant died, due to the injuries sustained in the accident. So far as appellant is concerned, the doctor examined him and found compound fracture of tibia and fibula bones of the left leg. The doctor also found serious injuries on the different parts of the body. The ribs of the appellant were also found to be fractured. Therefore, the appellant was required to be admitted in Orthopaedic Ward where the X-ray was conducted and the plaster was applied. The appellant was also admitted in the Military Hospital at Morar, where he took the treatment from 17.6.1997 to 20.6.1997. Thereafter, he was admitted in a private nursing home of Dr. Anupam Gupta. Dr. Anupam Gupta re-examined the appellant. The operation of the left leg was conducted and the appellant got treatment there continuously from 21.6.1997 to 29.6.1997 and incurred Rs. 25,000 towards medical expenses.
4. The report of the incident was lodged at Police Station, Morar where it was registered at Crime No. 408 of 1997 for the offence under Sections 279, 337, 304A of Indian Penal Code against respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 was arrested and the offending vehicle was also seized. After due investigation, the challan was filed against respondent No. 1 in the court of C.J.M., Gwalior.
5. The claimant preferred a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Claims Tribunal. Along with the petition, an application under Section 140 for interim compensation was also filed before the Tribunal. The Claims Tribunal rejected the said application. Hence this appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Claims Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the application under Section 140.
7. This court on 11.3.1999 noted in detail about the facts of the case. On 12.3.1999, the appellant was produced on a stretcher. On 17.3.1999, the documents regarding treatment and the prescription were filed by the appellant, supplying the copies to the other side, which have not been rebutted.
8. Counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant is not in a position even to walk and as such, he was brought on a stretcher. It is further stated that the compensation so far as the no fault liability is concerned cannot be denied.
9. In this case, the claimant has filed the F.I.R., challan papers and the X-ray plates. The certificate of Dr. Sunil Garg, Orthopaedics Department, J.A. Group of Hospitals, Gwalior dated 7.6.97 has been filed, which shows the compound fracture of tibia and fibula bones. There is another certificate/medical report of Dr. Anupam Gupta, dated 24.6.1997, which also mentions the compound fracture of the leg and the operation was done of left leg.
10. Having thus considered the facts and circumstances, and the entire material on record, in the opinion of this court, the Claims Tribunal has committed illegality in rejecting the application for no fault liability.
11. In view of what has been stated above, the appeal is allowed. The order passed by the Claims Tribunal is set aside. The claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs. 25,000 towards no fault liability with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till realisation. The appeal is allowed with costs.
12. Before parting, it is made clear that so far as the decision of the claim on the merits is concerned, the Tribunal shall decide the case on its own merits, without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order.
13. Counsel’s fee Rs. 1,000.