JUDGMENT
A.K. Padhi, J.
1. Insurer is the appellant. Appeal has been filed against an order passed under Section 140 directing the appellant to indemnify the owner for its liability under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
2. A claim petition has been filed by the widow and minor children of one Supriya Mazumdar claiming compensation on account of the accidental death of Supriya Mazumdar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a motor vehicle accident on 17.8.1990. In the claim petition it is averred that deceased was working in Branch Office of Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd., respondent No. 1. After completion of his work in Kanhia block he was returning in the offending vehicle (a jeep) bearing registration No. MZV 3534. Due to rash and negligent driving of the driver, the jeep met with an accident and deceased died at the spot, due to the accident. The application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, was registered as M.A.C.T. Case No 213 of 1990. The claimants filed application for interim compensation as envisaged under Section 140 of the Act which was registered as M.A.C. Misc. Case No. 214 of 1990. The application filed under Section 140 of the Act was taken up for hearing and order was passed on 11.12.1991. In the said order the Tribunal directed the owner of the vehicle to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as has been mandated under Section 140 and directed the insurer of the said vehicle (appellant) to indemnify the owner and pay the aforesaid amount within a month from the date of the order. He further directed that on failure to pay the aforesaid amount within the stipulated period insurer would be liable to pay penal interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum.
3. Challenging the aforesaid order passed under Section 140 of the Act, the insurer has filed this appeal. A preliminary objection was taken by the claimants that the order under Section 140 of the Act not being an award, appeal under Section 173 is not maintainable in this Court. The appellant submitted that order under Section 140 being in the nature of an interim award is appealable.
4. The question of maintainability of the appeal against an order passed under Section 140 of the Act has been decided today in Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Somani Ghosh M.A. No. 145 of 1992; decided on 2.3.1994, in which it has been held that appeal lies against an order passed under Section 140 of the Act. Therefore, the preliminary objection is overruled.
5. Challenging the order on merits, the counsel for the appellant submitted that the order under Section 140 of the Act is not sustainable as it has been passed in violation of natural justice. On 29.10.1991 M.A.C.T. Case No. 213 of 1990 and Misc. Case No. 214 of 1990 both were placed for orders and Tribunal had granted time to the appellant till 13.1.1992 for filing of written statement. The miscellaneous case was never posted to 11.12.1991 for hearing. On an advance petition filed by the claimants the matter was taken up for hearing and the impugned order was passed on that day. Since no opportunity was given to the appellant before passing of the order there has been violation of natural justice and the impugned order is illegal and liable to be set aside. Counsel for the claimants, on the other hand, submitted that Section 140 is a benevolent provision and has been enacted for giving speedy remedy to the destitute legal representatives of a person who dies by accidental death. The enquiry as envisaged under the Act is of summary nature. Adequate opportunity was afforded to the appellant to file written statement and, therefore, the impugned order is valid and legal and should not be interfered with.
6. In order to determine the sustainability of the order in question the order dated 29.10.1991 is extracted below:
MAC 213-90/Misc. 214-90
Adv. for the petitioner files hazira. Adv. for OP 2 files two separate petitions praying for time to file written statement. Heard. Time is granted till 13.1.1992 for filing of written statement by OP 2.
Thereafter on 11.12.1991 claimants filed an advance petition. The advance petition filed by claimants-respondents reads as follows:
Advance petition for hearing. The petitioners named above beg to state as follows:
(1) That in the above case the sole bread-earner of the petitioners died in the motor vehicle accident.
(2) That the petitioners have filed the above Misc. Case for an interim award under Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act which is pending now for disposal.
PRAYER
Hence it is prayed that your honour may be graciously pleased to call for the record and pass necessary orders. And for this act of kindness the petitioner shall ever pray.”
xxx xxx xxx
A copy of this was served on the insurer on the same day which he received with objection. It is manifest from the orders dated 29.10.1991 and 11.12.1991 that though the appellant was given time till 13.1.1992 to file his written statement the impugned order was passed on 11.12,1991 on advance petition filed by the claimants.
The procedure for enquiry which holds the field are rules 27 and 28 of the Orissa Motor Vehicles (Accidents Claims Tribunal) Rules, 1960.
7. Section 140 of the Act is a benevolent provision for giving speedy remedy to the destitute legal representatives of a person who dies by accidental death. In an enquiry under Section 140 of the Act it is not necessary on the part of the claimants to establish that the death of the deceased was due to any wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner or owners of the vehicle. The only ingredients to be established by the claimants to attract the provision of Section 140 of the Act are that an accident had occurred by a vehicle and the death was resultant of the accident. In order to fasten the liability on the insurer, the Tribunal has to further find out as to whether the insurer had the liability to indemnify the owner as by the inclusive definition of Section 145 of the Act the insurer is liable to indemnify any compensation payable by the owner under Section 140 of the Act. It is the owner’s liability which is fastened on the insurer under certain circumstances. Admittedly, the enquiry which is contemplated under Section 140 of the Act should not be an elaborate one and has to be of a summary nature. This is also very clear from the rules 27 and 28 of the Motor Vehicles (Accidents Claims Tribunal) Rules, 1960. But the basic requirements of principles of natural justice are to be followed.
8. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The matter is remitted to the trial court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. Tribunal shall give opportunity to all the parties and shall dispose of the application under Section 140 of the Act as expeditiously as possible.