AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr. R.P. Dholaria, J. (Oral) - These appeals are preferred by the appellant Insurance Company against the interim award dated 22/08/2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Rajkot in MACP No.105 of 2016, granting interim compensation of Rs.25,000/- and in MACP No.106 of 2016, granting interim compensation of Rs.50,000/- under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ''the MV Act'').
Heard Mr. Rahul Dholakia, learned advocate for the appellant Insurance Company and perused the impugned judgment and award.
Mr. Rahul Dholakia, learned advocate for the appellant has vehemently contended that though the Insurance Company raised the issue regarding status of the persons i.e. injured claimants who were traveling in the rickshaw as passengers and therefore, they are unauthorized passengers and their risk is not covered and no liability could have been fastened upon the Insurance Company, however, the said issue was not considered by the learned Tribunal while considering the application under Section 140 of the MV Act. He has, therefore, contended that the learned Tribunal could not have passed the impugned awards fastening the liability upon the Insurance Company. Therefore, present appeals are filed.
Taking into consideration the above contention raised by Mr. Rahul Dholakia, learned advocate as well as the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal, it appears that the dispute as to whether the claimants were traveling upon the rickshaw in question as the owner of goods or not, can only be decided after adducing and leading evidence while considering the main claim petitions and the same cannot be determined at the stage of consideration of application under Section 140 of the MV Act. Consequently, therefore, the rival parties have not got any liberty of adducing and producing evidence.
Therefore, this issue raised by the learned advocate can only be adjudicated at the stage of full fledged trial. This issue cannot be decided at the interim stage and taking into consideration the intention of legislature for interim awards. The appellant is at liberty to raise such issues while defending the main claim petition and the learned Tribunal shall decide the same in its own merits without being influenced by the decision rendered by the learned Tribunal itself while considering the application under Section 140 of the MV Act and without being treating as res judicata.
Since these appeals are against the interim awards and main claim petitions are pending before the learned Tribunal, it appears just and proper to dispose of the appeals at the admission stage with a direction to the learned Tribunal to decide the main claim petitions as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order.
While considering the main claim petitions, the learned Tribunal shall afford reasonable opportunity to the rival parties to proceed so far as the controversy raised in this matter is concerned and the learned Tribunal shall decide the said issue without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court at this stage.
With these directions, present appeals are disposed of.
With these directions, the Civil Applications also stand disposed of.