Pradeep Rajak vs Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another

Rekha Kumari, J.—Heard the parties. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 15.4.2002 passed by the 2nd Addl. District Judge-cum-Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal, Aurangabad in Motor Vehicles Claim Case No. 28 of 2000 by which claim of the appellant for ad interim compensation u/s 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been rejected on the ground that the claimant/injured has not sustained any injury causing permanent disablement, as defined u/s 142 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

The appellant had met with an accident on 13.10.1997 caused by a truck.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the above provision i.e. Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act is intended to provide compensation for no fault liability. The appellant sustained injuries and there is a report of the Medical Board showing that the appellant suffered 31 per cent injury. Learned 2nd Addl. District Judge, hence, was not justified in refusing ad interim compensation to the appellant. In support of his submissions, he relied on a judgment of the Patna High Court reported in 1997(1) PLJR 987 and the judgments of Madhya Pradesh High Court, reported in 2000 ACJ 1107, 2001 ACJ 2079, a judgment of Kerala High Court reported in 1995 ACJ 164 and another judgment of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench, reported in 2000 ACJ 108.

Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, Opposite parties/respondents opposed the prayer and contended that the order of the learned Tribunal is very clear that the injuries sustained by the appellant are not covered by the definition of permanent disablement, as provided u/s 142 of the Motor Vehicles Act and hence the Tribunal has rightly refused the prayer of the appellant. In support of this submission, he relied on a judgment of our own High Court reported in 2004(3) PLJR 328.

It is clear from the perusal of Section 140 of the M.V. Act that the interim compensation is permissible only in the event of death or permanent disablement.

Permanent disablement has been defined u/s 142 of the Act. Section 142 reads thus:

"142. Permanent disablement.--For the purposes of this Chapter permanent disablement of a person shall be deemed to have resulted from an accident of the nature referred to in subsection (1) of Section 140 if such person has suffered by reason of the accident any injury or injuries involving:--

(a) Permanent privation of the sight of either eye or the hearing of either ear or privation of any member of joint; or

(b) Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member of joint; or

(c) Permanent disfiguration of the head or face."

In this case the impugned order shows that from the injuries found on the appellant it does not appear that any of them is covered by the above definition. The report of the Medical Board is also not clear that the appellant suffered any permanent disability.

The decision relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant does not help the appellant as in all those cases there was permanent disablement.

So, the Tribunal was justified in not granting interim compensation.

In the result, the appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. It is, however, made clear that no observation/finding made in this order would be binding on the Tribunal while deciding the claim u/s 166 based on evidence.