JUDGMENT
D.R. Dhanuka, J.
1. By an order dated 3.12.1992, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Satara, has directed opponent Nos. 2 and 3 in Motor Accidents Claims Petition No. 300 of 1992 to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- to the claimants towards ‘no fault liability’ within six weeks from the date of the said order. By the said order it was further provided that in default, the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum.
2. Shujaat Z. Dalai and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (original opponent Nos. 2 and 3) have filed this First Appeal against the above order directing payment of compensation on account of ‘no fault liability’ as contemplated under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
3. At all material times, the appellant No. 1 was the registered owner of the suit motor vehicle, i.e., Bajaj Chetak scooter No. MH 01/C 7485. The appellant No. 2 had issued an insurance policy in respect of the said vehicle covering, inter alia, the third party risk. It is alleged that on 30.10.1991, the said vehicle was stolen. It is not disputed that on 26.3.1992, the accident took place on Medha-Satara Road resulting in the death of one Vitthal Mahadeo Lohar. The claimants are the widow and children of the deceased. The claimant No. 1 is the widow. The claimant Nos. 2 to 5 are minor children of the deceased. On 18.2.1992, the appellant No. 1 issued an advance receipt in the sum of Rs. 16,000/- in favour of appellant No. 2 on account of the loss of the said vehicle. It is stated in the said receipt that the appellant No. 1 was agreeable to cancellation of the insurance cover given under the policy bearing No. 31-11110001497. On 18.3.1992, the appellant No. 2 paid the above referred sum of Rs. 16,000/-. The insurance policy was cancelled only in the month of September, 1992. The registration book in respect of the said vehicle does not show that the ownership of the said vehicle was transferred from the name of the appellant No. 1 to any other third party at any time. The ownership of appellant No. 1 in respect of the said vehicle was not extinguished merely by reason of the alleged theft. The name of appellant No. 1 continues to be shown as registered owner of the said vehicle on the date of the said accident. The expression ‘owner’ has been defined in Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to mean, inter alia, as a person in whose name the motor vehicle stands registered. The appellant No. 1 continues to be registered owner of the said vehicle. In any event, the appellant No. 2 became the owner of the said vehicle on payment of the above referred sum of Rs. 16,000/- to appellant No. 1 in view of subrogation.
4. Having regard to the above facts, I have reached the conclusion that the appellant No. 1 was the registered owner of the said vehicle at the time of accident. The above referred insurance policy was in force on the date of the accident. The insurance policy was cancelled only in September, 1992. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is a special statute. The provisions of Motor Vehicles Act providing for payment of ‘no fault liability’ cannot be whittled down merely by reason of theft of the vehicle. The said provisions are made in public interest and must be implemented expeditiously.
5. In the result, the appeal fails. The appeal is summarily dismissed. The court is informed that the appellants have already deposited the above referred sum of Rs. 25,000/- before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Satara. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is directed to release the above referred amount of Rs. 25,000/- to the claimant Nos. 1 to 5 after taking precaution insofar as claimant Nos. 2 to 5 (minors) are concerned. If the amounts pertaining to minors are required to be invested, the same would be invested with a nationalised bank with the usual safeguards.
6. The Registrar, High Court, Appellate Side, is directed to forward an authenticated copy of this order to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Satara, expeditiously and within one week from today as far as possible so that the victims of the accident may be able to get the money from the Tribunal immediately. An urgent action is the need of the hour. The office is directed to act expeditiously.
7. The Registrar, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Satara, is directed to release the amount expeditiously and latest within two weeks from the receipt of the communication from this court and make a report to this court soon thereafter.
8. In the event of there being any difficulty, parties shall be at liberty to apply for further directions related to guide implementation of this order.
9. Issue of certified copy is expedited.