- (1.) AMITAVA Lala, J. The appellant-Insurance Company has preferred this appeal from the judgment and order dated 20th February, 2008 passed by the concerned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bareilly.
(2.) THE awarded amount is Rs. 6,90,040/- and the liability to pay the same has been fixed on both the offending vehicles. THE Insurance Company herein is insurer of the Scooter. In the accident in question the pillion rider has expired. THE appellant initially took the plea that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation on account of death of pillion rider. But when we called upon the Insurance Company to produced the policy of the insurance and the same was so produced, we find that it is comprehensive in nature having sitting capa city of two persons. THErefore, we do not find any genuine cause to interfere with the order impugned on such plea. So far as the claim of security is concerned, it is contended before us that the Insurance Company is entitled to security of entire amount to be paid to the claimants from the owner. In our view, the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant suffers from misconception. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a benevolent piece of legislation, therefore, the interests of genuine claimants are to be protected at first. Under no circumstances, the payment of compensation to the claimants will be stalled allowing the Insurance Company or the owner to fight out against each other to get the security before hand. Learned Counsel has cited the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (2004) 8 SCC 519, National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Challa Bharathamma and others, to establish that the claim of the Insurance Company should be secured by the owner. We have no quarrel with such proposition. What we want to say is that unless and until an appropriate application in the selfsame proceeding is made by the Insurance Company for the purpose of recovery, the question of furnishing security by the owner cannot arise. Such situation is yet to ripe. At this stage, we are only concerned with the payment of compensation to the claimants which cannot be stalled and has got nothing to do with the dispute regarding liability between the owner and the Insurance Company. The sufferer is a third party. Moreover, in such judgment, the Division Bench of the Supreme Court has categorically held "considering the beneficial object of the Act, it would be proper for the insurer to satisfy the award, though in law it has no liability. " In effect it is a stop-gap arrangement to satisfy the award as soon as it is passed. The judg ment of 3 Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and others, (2004) 3 SCC 297 also speaks in para 110 that the tribunal can direct that the insurer is liable to be reimbursed by the insured for the compensation and other amounts which it has been compelled to pay to the third party under the award of the Tribunal. Therefore, the intention of the legisla ture as well as the interpretation by the Supreme Court and different High Courts is well settled to the extent that under no circumstances payment of compensa tion to the claimants will be stalled. Even at the cost of repetition we say, it has nothing to do with the dispute with regard to liability of owner or insurer, which can be considered in the separate application in the selfsame cause or in an execution application in connection thereto to be initiated by the Insurance Com pany.
(3.) THEREFORE, in totality we do not find any cogent reason to interfere with the judgment and order, which has been passed by the tribunal making stop-gap arrangement for payment by the Insurance Company to the claimants. Hence, the appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission, however, without imposing any cost. Incidentally, the appellant prayed that the statutory deposit of Rs. 25,000 made before this Court for preferring this appeal be remitted back to the concerned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal as expeditiously as possible in order to adjust the same with the amount of compensation to be paid to the claimants, however, such prayer is allowed. .;