AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.—All these appeals are pertaining to the same accident. About 44 persevere travelling in a tractor-trailer to attend the funeral function. As a result of the accident, 9 inmates died and 27 persons were injured. The petitioners sought compensation u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (''Act'' for short). The application is made u/s 140 of the Act to seek interim compensation. The Tribunal directed the owner and insurer to pay the compensation. Appellant is the insurer.
It is the contention of the respondents that an appeal u/s 173 of the Act, would not lie against ah order u/s 140 of the Act. In this regard, the decision of the Divisional Controller, MSRTC Vs. Bapu Onkar Chaudhari, is relied on. In the said decision, the Bombay High Court interpreting Rule 281 of the Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Rules, held that an order passed u/s 140 of the Act, is not an award.
The Full Bench Decision of the Karnataka High Court pertains to an appeal against grant of interim compensation u/s 92A of the M.V. Act 1939 which corresponding to Section 140 of the M.V. Act 1988, wherein it is held that while granting interim compensation, it is also necessary that liability of insurer is to be decided on the basis of the terms of policy while fastening the liability. The Full Bench Decision impliedly affirms the view that an appeal u/s 173 would lie against an interim award The Rule 250 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicle Rules, makes it clear that an order passed u/s 140 of the Act is also an award. Therefore, it becomes appeal able u/s 173 of the Act.
In the decision of the Bombay High Court, the State Road Transport Authority was directed to pay the compensation. State Road Transport Authority has a self insurance scheme. In the ultimate analysis as a owner, the State Road Transport Corporation cannot avoid liability in such circumstances.
In the Instant case, it is established by the admitted facts that the petitioners are the unauthorised passengers in the tractor-trailer. In view of the ruling of the Supreme Court in Chinnamma''s case, the insurer does not incur the liability. Therefore, directing the insurer to pay the interim compensation is bad in law.
In this view of the matter, the appeals are allowed. The amount shall be refunded to the appellant.