IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
MA No.697 of 2009
BABY DEVI, W/o Ravindra Kumar, Resident of Village - Dhandua,
P.S.- Jandaha, District - Vaishali at Hajipur.
..... Opp. Party No. 1 (owner), Appellant.
Versus
SUNAINA DEVI @ SUNITA DEVI, Wife of Ram Babu Rai, Resident of
Village - Govindpur Thakharaha, P.S.- Rajapakar, District-
Vaishali at Hajipur (Pchhoner).
...... Claimant, Respondent
-----------
For the appellant: Sri Hemendra Prasad Singh, Advocate
For the respondent: Sri Dhurendra Kumar, Advocate
Sri Ashok Priyadarshi, S.C.
———
11 21.06.2011 Heard Sri Hemendra Prasad Singh,
learned counsel for the appellant, Sri
Dhurendra Kumar, who appears on behalf of sole
respondent/claimant on M.A. 697 of 2009 as well
as Interlocutory Application No. 2638 of 2010
filed for impleading National Insurance Company
as proposed respondent and I.A. No. 7583 of
2009, which was filed for condoning the delay.
Interlocutory Application i.e. I.A. No.
7583 of 2009 was filed for condoning the delay
of seven days in filing the appeal.
In view of grounds set forth in the
limitation petition, delay in filing the appeal
is condoned and Interlocutory Application No.
7583 of 2009 stands allowed.
On Interlocutory Application No. 2638
of 2010, Sri Ashok Priyadarshi, learned counsel
for National Insurance Company/proposed
2
respondent, has argued that since the appeal
was filed at belated stage, the prayer for
impleading National Insurance Company as
respondent is liable to be rejected.
I have heard Sri Hemendra Prasad Singh,
learned counsel for the appellant on merit of
the case.
The present appeal has been filed
against an order which was passed under Section
140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, whereby, the
learned Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal,
Vaishali at Hajipur (hereinafter referred to as
‘Tribunal’) had allowed the petition of the
claimant for payment of interim compensation of
Rs. 50,000/-
The appellant is the owner of the
offending vehicle.
Learned counsel for the appellant
submits, that the learned Tribunal has
incorrectly decided that the vehicle in
question, at the time of accident, was being
driven by the son of the owner of the
vehicle/appellant.
It was submitted that during
investigation it has come that the vehicle in
question was being driven by the driver who was
3
having proper licence.
It was further submitted that before
passing the interim order the learned Tribunal
was required to conduct an enquiry which has
not been done, and accordingly, the order in
question, is liable to be set aside.
Learned counsel for the
respondent/claimant submits that F.I.R. itself
indicates that at the time of accident the
vehicle in question was being driven by the son
of the owner/appellant, who was not authorised
to drive the commercial vehicle. At the time of
hearing the petition filed under Section 140 of
the Motor Vehicle Act learned Tribunal was not
required to ask the claimant to establish with
all evidence that accident had occurred due to
gross negligence and fault of the owner, but
only on prima facie satisfaction the Tribunal
was required to pass order.
It was further submitted that the
claimant has also filed Claim Petition under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act vide Claim
Case No. 130 of 2010 which is still pending.
Accordingly, it was argued that the interim
compensation amount can be adjusted at the time
of final adjudication of the claim case.
4
Accordingly, it was submitted that the
appellant/owner would be at liberty to
participate in the main claim petition and may
take any stand in the said claim petition.
In the present case, on 2.12.2007, son
of the claimant died in an accident by the
commercial vehicle of the appellant. After the
accident, an F.I.R. was lodged, and in the
F.I.R. the informant made statement, that
vehicle in question at the time of accident was
being driven by the son of the owner of the
vehicle, whereas, since it was a commercial
vehicle it was required to be driven by a
driver having licence for driving the vehicle.
Accordingly, a petition under Section 140 of
the Motor Vehicle Act was initially filed for
interim compensation and the learned Tribunal
after hearing the parties and prima facie
satisfied that owner himself was at fault has
passed the impugned order and directed the
owner of the vehicle/appellant to pay interim
compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. Subsequently, as
submitted by learned counsel for respondent, a
Claim Petition under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicle Act has been filed vide Claim Case No.
130 of 2010 and the same is still pending.
5
The court is of the opinion that
appellant can lead evidence to dispute the
claim of the sole respondent in the claim case
filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act,
and at this stage, it is not appropriate to
interfere with the impugned order which has
been passed for immediately compensating the
family of the deceased.
After going through the impugned order
the court is of the opinion that there is no
error, and accordingly, the order impugned
requires no interference.
The appeal stands rejected.
(Rakesh Kumar, J.)
Praful