Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation vs Heirs of deceased Sonabai Jeturbhai alias Faibaben Khatabhai

B.J. Shethna, J.—The S.T. Corporation has filed this appeal against the interim order dated 3.2.1993 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Main), Bhavnagar in M.A.C. Petition No. 193 of 1992 whereby original opponents were directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- to the original claimant subject to the final adjustment within a period of one month of the order.

Mr. Shah, learned advocate for the appellant Corporation, has submitted that the respondent-claimant is an aged lady of 50 years. She filed a claim petition claiming that she is the only legal heir and representative of deceased, Sonabai Jeturbhai, who was the mother of the claimant. In that claim petition, an application Exh. 4 has been filed by the claimant u/s 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming Rs. 25.000/-from the Original opponents under no fault liability. Mr. Shah submitted that if the amount of Rs. 25,000/- is paid and she is permitted to withdraw the said amount, ultimately even if the Corporation succeeds it will not be able to recover the said amount from the original claimant. Therefore, the said amount should be ordered to be deposited in the fixed deposit scheme for a period of five years and ultimately if the claimant succeeds in her main claim petition, then the said amount may be handed over to her. It is true that the deceased was 70 years old at the time of accident, which took place on 6.3.1992. But the intention of the legislature is very clear that the legal heirs of the deceased, who died in the accident, must be paid Rs. 25,000/- immediately, which is very clear from Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Once it is proved that the claimant is a legal heir of the deceased, then she must get that amount. Because she is a ''poor lady and the Corporation ultimately if succeeds in the claim petition, it will not be able to recover the amount from the lady, is not a ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Tribunal in this appeal. As other citizens have to file suit for recovery, the same procedure shall have to be followed by the Corporation. On that ground, Corporation cannot either refuse to pay the amount or insist that they may be permitted to deposit the said amount and the same may be invested in fixed deposit scheme till final disposal of the claim petition. If it is permitted then the very purpose of Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act would be frustrated.

In view of the above discussion, there is no substance or merit in this appeal. Accordingly, it fails and is dismissed.