Dheeraj Singh and Another vs Ajay Kumar and Others

Subhash Samvatsar, J.

This appeal is filed by the claimant against rejection of his application u/s 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

The facts giving rise to this appeal are that one Prakash Singh died in a motor accident on 6.3.1993. He was riding a motor cycle bearing No. MP 08-B 0823. As per allegations in the claim petition he was pillion rider and died on the spot in the accident. Respondent No. 1, who is the owner of the vehicle lodged an F.I.R. stating that the motor cycle was driven by the deceased at the time of accident. The present claimants who are claiming to be the heirs of the deceased Prakash Singh filed the claim petition for compensation for the death of Prakash Singh. Along with the claim petition the claimants also filed an application u/s 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The said application is rejected by the Claims Tribunal against which the present appeal is filed. The court has rejected the application solely relying upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Shivaji Dayanu Patil and another Vs. Smt. Vatschala Uttam More, and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ashadevi and Others, , in which it was stated that while deciding the application for interim award u/s 140 of Motor Vehicles Act the Tribunal should take into consideration all the documents, i.e., F.I.R., post-mortem report, medical report, the spot inspection report, etc. In view of the said judgment the court has considered the F.I.R. which is lodged by respondent No. 1 and prima facie came to the conclusion that since the deceased himself was driving the vehicle he is not entitled to interim award.

After hearing the arguments of the parties, I am of the view that the impugned award cannot be sustained in law. The F.I.R. which is considered by the Claims Tribunal for rejecting the application is in fact lodged by respondent No. 1 and any statement made in the said F.I.R. cannot bind the claimants. The claimants in their claim application have specifically stated that the vehicle was driven by the respondent No. 1 at the time of accident and the deceased was riding the said vehicle as a pillion rider. There is no other material on record to show that the deceased was driving the vehicle. At the time of deciding the application u/s 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act the court should have decided the application considering the allegations made in the claim petition.

In the claim petition it is specifically averred that the deceased was riding the vehicle as a pillion rider and, therefore, the Tribunal erred in rejecting the application for interim award. Thus, the impugned order is set aside, and the respondents are directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 25,000 as an interim award payable to the claimants.

After perusing the record of the trial court, I find that the evidence of both the parties is fully recorded and only final arguments are to be heard. In view of this fact, I direct the Claims Tribunal to decide the claims petition within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the record of the petition. The record of the petition be sent to the Claims Tribunal without any delay.

With the aforesaid directions, the appeal is allowed with no orders as to costs.