JUDGMENT
P.K. Patra, J.
1. This is an application under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”) challenging the order dated 23.5.1998 passed by the 2nd M.A.C.T., Cuttackin Misc. Case No. 576 of 1995 directing payment of Rs. 50,000.00 to the claimants as interim relief, under no fault liability u/s. 140 of the Act.
2. The claimants were the dependents of the deceased who died in a motor accident caused by the offending tanker bearing registration number ORP 7231. The present appellant – the Insurance company – objected to the said prayer and after hearing the parties and perusing the-documents on record, the 2nd M.A.C.T. was of the view that the death of the deceased was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. Accordingly he allowed the prayer of the claimants and rejected the objection raised by the Insurance Company that at that stage the claimants were to prove the accident and that the death of the deceased was caused due to the said accident as also the insurance of the offending tanker by leading evidence.
3. Shri Parija, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Chowdhury, learned counsel for the respondents, were heard at length. Shri Parija contended that since the claimants have not proved the valid insurance of the offending tanker and valid driving licence of the driver, grant of interim relief is not legally sustainable and is liable to be set aside. Shri Ghowdnury contended that the claimants are not required to prove the validity of the insurance or the driving licence at the stage of claiming interim relief under Section 140 of the Act and that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the amount under “No fault liability” under the said Section and that at that stage the Tribunal has to find out a prima facie case that death of the deceased was due to the rash and negligent driving and that even if the Insurance Company is held not liable at the time of disposal of the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the amount paid to the claimants as interim relief can be reimbursed from the owner of the vehicle.
4. In support of his contention, Shri Chowdhury has placed reliance on the decisions reported in 1991 ACJ 777 (Shivaji Dayantt Patil and another v. Vatschala Uttam More), 89 (2000) CLT 322 (Divisional Manager v. Smt. Mala Kar and others) and 88 (1999) CLT 450 (New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Ghara Nag and others). In the first case it has been held by the Supreme Court that the Claims Tribunal is not required to follow the normal procedure as prescribed with regard to adjudication of claim under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Section 166 of the 1988 Act) while disposing of an application under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. It has been further held by the Apex Court that for awarding compensation and Section 92-A of the Act, the Claims Tribunal is required to satisfy itself in respect of the following matters:
“(i) an accident has arisen out of the use of a motor vehicle;
(ii) the said accident has resulted in permanent disablement of the person who is making the claim or death of the person whose legal representative is making the claim; and
(iii) the claim is made against the owner and the insurer of the motor vehicle involved in the accident.”
It has been further observed by the Apex Court that the documents referred to in Rules 291 -A and 306-B will enable the Claims Tribunal to ascertain the necessary facts with regard to these matters. The Panchanama and the first information report will show whether the accident had arisen out of the use of the motor vehicle in question. The injury certificate or the post-mortem report will show the nature of injuries and the cause of death. The registration certificate and insurance certificate of the motor vehicle will indicate who is the owner and insurer of the vehicle. In the event of the Claims Tribunal feeling doubtful about the correctness or genuineness of any of these documents or if it considers it necessary to obtain supplementary information or documents, Rule 306-A empowers the Claims Tribunal to obtain such supplementary information or documents from the police, medical or other authorities.
5. In the other two cases, it has been held by Hon’ble P.K. Misra, J. of this Court that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the amount under “No fault liability” under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act and that the Insurance Company can reimburse the said amount from the owner if ultimately at the time of final disposal of the application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act the Insurance Company is found not liable due to want of valid driving licence.
6. In the present case, the Tribunal has considered the documents available on record and has come to the finding that the death of the deceased was due to rash and negligent driving of the offending tanker by its driver and that the driver had a valid driving licence. In view of the decisions of the Apex Court and of this Court referred to above, the impugned order granting interim relief under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be interfered with and the prayer of the Insurance Company to set aside the same cannot be allowed and is liable to be rejected.
7. In the result, the Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit and the Impugned order is affirmed. There shall be no order as to costs.