Both, Mr. Thomas, Ld. Advocate for Mr. Nanavati, Ld. Advocate the appellant, so also Mr. PA Bhatt, Ld. Advocate the respondent nos. 2 to 5 and 7 – the original claimants, submitted that considering the nature of the appeal, the appeal may be heard and disposed of. The respondent no. 6 came to be deleted even before the Claim Tribunal. The respondent no. 1 is served, but none appeared for the respondent no. 1.
2 In above view of the matter and as requested by the learned advocates representing the parties, the appeal is heard today and is being disposed of by this judgment.
3 The instant appeal is filed by the appellant – Insurance Company challenging the impugned order dated 29/11/2011 passed by the Ld. M.A.C. Tribunal [Aux.] Panchmahals at Godhra, below application exh. 5 in M.A.C. Petition No. 1590/2006, whereby the Tribunal allowed said application filed by the respondents – original claimants under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act [MV Act] and directed the appellant herein, who was respondent no. 2, so also the respondent no. 1 herein to pay Rs.50,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of filing of the said application till realization. The aforesaid order came to be passed under section 140 of the MV Act regarding interim compensation under 'no fault liability'. Mr. Thomas, Ld. Advocate for the appellant, at the outset, submitted that before the Tribunal a contention was raised that the vehicle involved in the accident was a transport vehicle and there was defective driving licence and, therefore, there was breach of conditions of the policy and the appellant – Insurance Company was not liable to any award. Mr. Thomas submitted that despite the fact that said contention was raised by the appellant – Insurance Company before the Tribunal and the Tribunal recorded such contention in the impugned order, but did not deal with the said contention and passed the impugned order. Mr. Thomas, therefore, submitted that the appeal deserves consideration.
4 Mr. Thomas, Ld. Advocate for the appellant submitted that when such basic contention raised by the appellant – Insurance Company has not at all been decided by the Tribunal, by allowing such appeal, the Tribunal is directed to decide the application under section 140 of the MV Act afresh, but in the instant case, that course may not be in the interest of justice for both the sides because the original claim petition is of the year 2006 and, therefore, if the Tribunal will be directed to decide the application exh. 5 filed under section 140 of the MV Act by the claimants afresh, that would cause more delay to otherwise old proceedings. Mr. Thomas, therefore, submitted that it would be in the interest of justice for both the sides if the Tribunal is directed to decide the main claim petition itself in accordance with law at the earliest. He submitted that the appellant – Insurance Company was constrained to file this appeal because of the decision of this Court rendered in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v/s. Siddikbhai Ukabhai Solanki reported in 2012 [2] G.L.H. 465, otherwise at the end of the trial in the main claim petition, it would have become difficult for the appellant – Insurance Company to raise such technical defence.
5 Mr. Thomas, Ld. Advocete for the appellant further submitted that pursuant to the order dated 19/7/2012 passed in this matter, the appellant – Insurance Company has deposited the awarded amount with the concerned Claim Tribunal and, therefore, appropriate direction may be issued to the Tribunal in this respect.
6 Per contra, Mr. PA Bhatt, Ld. Advocate for the respondents – original claimants opposed this appeal and submitted that it is true that the technical contention raised by the appellant has not been decided on merits by the Tribunal in the impugned order, but the respondents – claimants have produced sufficient prima-facie evidence on record to controvert the technical contention raised by the appellant – Insurance Company and, therefore, it is submitted that the appeal may be dismissed.
7 I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides, so also the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. The bare perusal of the impugned order would suggest that though the technical contention raised on behalf of the appellant – Insurance Company has been recorded in the impugned order, but the same has not been dealt with on merits by the Tribunal. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the appeal deserves consideration and deserves to be allowed. Usually when such appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by the Tribunal under section 140 of the MV Act is set aside, the matter deserves to be remanded to the Tribunal to decide such application afresh. But considering the peculiar facts of this case, it transpires that the original claim petition itself is of the year 2006 and, therefore, if the Tribunal would be directed to decide the application filed by the claimant under section 140 of the MV Act afresh, that would cause more delay to otherwise old proceedings. Instead of that, as agreed by the learned advocates for both the sides, it would be in the interest of justice to direct the concerned Claim Tribunal to expeditiously decide the main claim petition itself and at that time the rights and contentions of both the sides shall remain intact and shall be dealt with by the concerned Claim Tribunal.
8 As submitted, the appellant – Insurance Company has deposited the awarded amount with the concerned Claim Tribunal and, therefore, appropriate direction is required to be issued.
9 For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed and Ld. M.A.C. Tribunal [Aux.], Panchmahals at Godhra, is directed to expedite the trial of M.A.C. Petition No. 1590/2006 and to dispose of the same as early as possible, preferably within six months from the date of communication of this order. The rights and contentions of both the sides are hereby kept open and at the time of final disposal of the aforementioned claim petition in accordance with law on the basis of the evidence that may be adduced before the Tribunal, the Tribunal shall take into consideration the case of the claimants, so also the contentions raised by the otherside on merits. It is hereby clarified that in the instant judgment no merits are examined.
10 The Tribunal is directed to invest the awarded amount deposited by the appellant – Insurance Company in F.D.R in any nationalized bank in the names of the respondent nos. 2 to 5 and 7 - original claimants, for the period of one year or till the disposal of the claim petition, whichever is earlier. However, the respondents – claimants shall be entitled to get periodical interest on the F.D.R. The original F.D.R shall be retained in the custody of Nazir of the Tribunal.
11 Since the appeal stands disposed of, the Civil Application for stay loses its survival value and also stands disposed of accordingly.
( J.C. UPADHYAYA, J.) * Pansala.