1. Mr.Thomas, learned advocate for Mr.Nanavati, learned advocate for the appellant, Mr.Tushar Sheth, learned advocate for the respondent no.2 and Mr.Hemal Shah, learned advocate for the respondent no.3-original claimant, request that considering the nature of appeal, the entire appeal may be heard and may be disposed of.
2. None appeared for the respondent no.1 though served.
3. The instant appeal is filed by the appellant- original opponent no.2, challenging the impugned order dated 25.06.2012, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Main), Rajkot, below application Exh:7, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1418 of 2010. The learned Tribunal by allowing said application Exh:7, which came to be filed by the respondent no.3 herein, who is original claimant, under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for interim compensation under the principle of no fault liability and the Tribunal directed to appellant (original opponent No.2), so also the respondent nos.1 & 2 herein (Opponent no.1 & 3) to deposit Rs.25,000/- under the head of no fault liability with interest at the rate of 8% per-annum from the date of filing of the main claim petition till the realization.
4. Mr.Thomas, learned advocate for the appellant, at the outset, submitted that the appellant- Insurance Company has raised an important contention regarding defective driving licence of driver of the vehicle and though such contention was raised before the concerned Tribunal in the impugned order, the Tribunal did not deal with that aspect of the matter.
4.1 Mr.Thomas, learned advocate further submitted that the second important contention, which came to be raised by the appellant before the concerned claim Tribunal was that the claimant along with others were travelling as illegal passengers and that contention again has not been dealt with in the impugned order. Mr.Thomas, learned advocate, therefore, submitted that the appeal deserves consideration.
4.2 Mr.Thomas, learned advocate submitted that the appellant was constrained to file this appeal on account of decision in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sidikbhai Ukabhai Solanki & Anr, reported in 2012 (2) GLH 465, as, if no such appeal is filed, at the end of the trial of the claim petition before the Tribunal, the appellant-Insurance Company may face difficulty to raise such technical ground.
4.3 Mr.Thomas, learned advocate further submitted that pursuant to the order dated 23.08.2012, the appellant-Insurance Company has deposited the awarded amount with the concerned claim Tribunal, and he requested that appropriate order regarding the same may also be passed.
5. Per contra, Mr.Shah, learned advocate for the respondent no.3-original claimant, submitted that before the claim Tribunal, the respondent no.3-
original claimant has produced sufficient evidence to controvert the contention raised by the applicant-Insurance Company. However, the learned Tribunal in the impugned order did not discuss those contentions on merits. He submitted that since the amount deposited by the appellant, is lying with the Tribunal, and therefore, appropriate disbursement order may be passed.
6. I have taken into consideration the submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides, so also I have considered the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It transpires that the appellant -Insurance Company raised two folds contentions namely alleged defective driving licence of the driver of the vehicle and alleged travelling by the respondent no.3-original claimant in the vehicle as illegal passenger and considering the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, it appears that those contentions have not been dealt with on merits by the concerned claim Tribunal.
7. In above view of the matter, there is substance in the submissions advanced by Mr.Thomas that the appeal deserves to be allowed. However, this Court is of the opinion that by allowing this appeal, if the matter is remanded to the concerned Tribunal with direction to decide the application Exh:7 afresh, that would cause more delay to otherwise old proceeding. Under such circumstance, this Court is of the opinion that by allowing this appeal, the concerned Claim Tribunal should be directed to dispose of main claim petition within stipulated time, and rights and contentions of both the parties shall remain intact and open. Under such circumstances, this appeal deserves to be allowed accordingly.
8. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. Learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Main), Rajkot, is directed to expedite the hearing of main claim petition being M.A.C.P No.1418 of 2010 and to dispose of the same in accordance with law at the earliest preferably within six months from the date of communication of this order. It is hereby made clear that the rights and contentions of both the sides shall remain open and intact, and at the time of final disposal of original claim petition, the Tribunal shall dispose of the said matter in accordance with law, after considering the case pleaded by claimants, so also the contentions raised by other side as well as on the basis of evidence that may be adduced before the claim Tribunal. The Tribunal is directed to invest the entire amount deposited by the appellant in F.D.R in any nationalized bank in the name of respondent no.3-original claimant, for a period of one year or till the disposal of the claim petition whichever is earlier. However, the respondent no.3-original claimant shall be entitled to get periodical interest there on at the interval of every quarter. The original F.D.R shall be kept in the custody of Nazir of said Tribunal. Final disbursement of the amount, which shall be kept in the F.D.R shall depend upon the result of the main claim petition.
9. Since the appeal stands disposed of, Civil Application for stay loses its survival value and also stands disposed of.
(J.C.UPADHYAYA, J.) Suchit*