1. Challenge in this appeal is to the impugned order dated 30.3.2012 passed by learned MAC Tribunal (Main), Vadodara below application, Exh.6 in MACP No.1503 of 2008. The Tribunal vide impugned order dated 30.3.2012 allowed said application, Exh.6 filed by respondent No.3 herein, who was original claimant u/s.140 of the MV Act and directed the appellant so also the respondents No.1 and 2 to pay interim compensation of Rs.25000/- with interest @ 7.5.% p.a. from the date of filing of the main claim petition till realisation.
2. Heard Mr.VC Thomas, learned advocate for Mr.Nanavati, learned advocate for the appellant, so also Mr.Hakim, learned advocate for the respondent No.2 – owner of the vehicle. None appeared for the respondent No.1 – driver and respondent No.3 – original claimant. Considering the nature of appeal, both the learned counsel requested that the entire appeal may be heard and disposed of. Under such circumstances, as requested, the appeal itself is heard and is being disposed of by this judgment.
3. Mr.Thomas, learned advocate for Mr.Nanavati, learned advocate for the appellant, at the outset, submitted that the appellant – insurance co., who was opponent No.3 before the Tribunal raised a contention that the cheque given by the owner of the vehicle, namely, the respondent No.2 herein towards the premium for renewal of insurance policy of the offending vehicle came to be dishonoured and the same was returned for want of sufficient balance. It is submitted that, accordingly, the policy itself was cancelled. Mr.Thomas, learned advocate for the appellant submitted that despite the fact that such contention, going to the root of the liability of the appellant – insurance co. to satisfy the interim award was raised, but the Tribunal did not deal with the said aspect of the matter on merits either in favour of the applicant – claimant or in favour or the insurance co. It is, therefore, submitted that the appeal may be allowed. However, Mr.Thomas, learned advocate submitted that instead of remanding the matter back to the Tribunal with a direction to decide the application, Exh.6 filed by the claimant u/s.140 of the MV Act afresh, it would in the interest of justice for both the parties, if the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the main claim petition in accordance with law, keeping open the rights and contentions to be raised by both the parties. Mr.Thomas submitted that the insurance co. was constrained to file this appeal in the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of United Indian Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs.Sidikbhai Ukabhai Solanki & Anr.
reported in 2012(2) GLH 465.
4. Mr.Hakim, learned advocate for the respondent No.2, the owner of the vehicle, at the outset, opposed this appeal and submitted that it it true that though in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal u/s.140 of the MV Act, the contention regarding bouncing the cheque of premium raised by the insurance co. has not been dealt with by the Tribunal on merits, but in the pleading, the claimant has explained this situation and, therefore, the appeal may be dismissed.
5. I have taken into consideration the submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides, so also the order dated 30.3.2012 passed by the Tribunal u/s.140 of the MV Act. It is true that before the Tribunal, the basic contention was raised by the appellant – insurance co. that the cheque given by the owner of the offending vehicle towards premium amount for the renewal of the policy was not honoured and the same has returned because of insufficient funds in his account, but the said aspect of the matter, was not dealt with on merits in the impugned order. I have also taken into consideration the observation made by this Court in Sidikbhai Ukabhai's case (supra). Considering the ratio laid down in Sidikbhai Ukabhai's case, it is true that the appellant – insurance co. was constrained to file the instant appeal to avoid any future difficulty in raising the said contention at the time of final disposal of the main claim petition. However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the opinion that instead of remanding the matter before the concerned Tribunal with a direction to decide the application filed by the claimant u/s.140 of the MV Act afresh on merits, it would be in the interest of justice for both the parties, if keeping open the rights and contentions of both the parties to be raised before the Tribunal at the time of final hearing of the main claim petition, the Tribunal should be appropriately directed to decide the main claim petition itself in accordance with law. Considering the fact that the main claim petition is of the year 2008, it would be in the interest of justice if the concerned Tribunal is directed to decide the main claim petition within a stipulated time.
6. Mr.Thomas, learned advocate for the appellant, at the outset, submitted that pursuant to the order dated 22.6.2012 passed in this matter, the appellant – insurance co.
has already deposited the amount of interim compensation together with interest with the concerned Tribunal. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the entire amount deposited shall be invested by the concerned Tribunal in fixed deposit in any nationalised bank as per the following directions.
7. For the foregoing reasons, the instant appeal stands dispose of with the specific direction to the concerned Claims Tribunal to expedite the trial of MACP No.1503 of 2008 and to dispose of the main claim petition in accordance with law and shall decide all the contentions that may be raised by the parties to the claim petition on merits. The Tribunal shall expedite the hearing of the aforementioned claim petition and shall dispose of the same in accordance with law, preferably within within six months from the date of communication of this order. It is hereby further made clear that the rights and contentions of all the parties are kept open.
8. Pursuant to the order dated 22.6.2012, the amount of interim compensation with interest deposited by the appellant – insurance co., shall be invested by the Tribunal in fixed deposit in any nationalised bank in the name of the Nazir of the Tribunal initially for the period of one year, or till the final disposal of the main claim petition, whichever period is earlier. However, the respondent No.3 – original claimant shall be entitled to get periodical interest on the FDR. The disbursement of the amount lying in the FDR shall depend upon the final outcome of the main claim petition. No Costs.
9. Since the instant appeal stands disposed of, the civil application for stay loses its survival value and also stands disposed of.
(binoy) (J.C.UPADHYAYA, J.)