KESHOTE, J. - (1.) THE New India Assurance Company Ltd. through its Assistant Manager, Jaipur Regional Office, Jaipur by this petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution is praying for quashing and setting aside of the order cum award dated 26. 5. 2001 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shahpura in claim petition No. 179/2001 Smt. Baljinder Kaur & others vs. Katraia Carriers and others.
(2.) THIS order cum award is on the record of this petition as Annexure-3. Under this impugned order cum award under Sec. 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shahpura has awarded Rs. 50,000/- as an interim compensation to the claimants. Out of this awarded amount, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shahpura has ordered for investment of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- is disbursed in favour of the claimants. At the outset it is to be stated that this approach of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shahpura to disburse 50% of amount of the interim award in favour of the claimants is not justified. The principle which is to be adopted while passing the order for disbursement of the finally awarded amount of the compensation to be applied in a matter of disbursement and investment of the amount of interim award. The claima-nts are dependents of late Jogendra Singh who was a driver. He was of the age of 27 years and naturally we can visualise and understand the age of the widow and minor daughter. The two other persons/claimants are the father and mother of deceased. From the claim petition I find that deceased Jogendra Singh was driving the truck of his father. In case 50% amount is disbursed in their favour, there is all the possibility of squandering of same by the persons having interest in the matter. This way the very purpose and object of providing immediate financial aid to the dependents will be frustrated. Instead of disbursing the 50% amount to the claimants the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal should have invested the amount in the long term fixed deposit and permitted the claimants i. e. widow and the minor daughter to withdraw the monthly interest accrues thereon for their maintenance. The order made for investment and disbursement of amount of interim award for the father and mother of the deceased is also not in consonance with the justice oriented approach as well as to provide the immediate financial aid to the widow and minor daughter of the deceased. The father of deceased as per the claim petition is a man of means. He is the owner of the truck. In these facts this principle that they are the legal heirs of the deceased would not have been applied at this stage and looking to the age of widow and minor daughter, total amount of Rs. 50,000/- would have been invested in the long term deposit and the withdrawal of amount of the monthly interest accrues thereon permitted to them for their expenses. The Assurance Company has challenged this order of the Tribunal and I fail to see any ground, justification and necessity for the company to file this petition against this order cum award which is to be passed by the Tribunal on the basis of no fault liability. It is not the case of the petitioner that it has filed any reply to the claim petition of the claimants. It is also not the case of the petitioner that it is raised this objection of jurisdiction of the Tribunal to try the claim petition. From the impugned order it also no where comes out that this objection regarding the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to try the claim petition has been raised. The Assurance Company is not an ordinary litigant. It is a State or agency or the instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. In the claim case filed by the claimants for the compensation for the death of their bread earner the Assurance Company has very limited defences which can be raised by it. The Company is unnecessarily has indulged itself in this total uncalled for and avoidable litigation. The question whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction in matter or not is not a pure question of law. It is a mixed question of law and facts for which this way what the grievance has been made by the petitioner leaving apart the question whether this defence is available or not is wholly unjustified. In fact this petition filed by the petitioner Assurance Company is not a bonafide one. To raise the question of jurisdiction first reply is to be filed by the Company in which this plea has to be raised and the Tribunal then has to frame issue if pressed and after recording the evidence of the parties to give decision thereon. In this case the Assurance Company has not bothered, cared and concerned to file the reply to the claim petition. Not only this the Assurance Company has also not filed the reply to the application of the claimants filed for the interim compensation. During the course of argument on this application also the Assurance Company has not raised any such objection before the Tribunal in the matter. When the Assurance Company has not raised this point of jurisdiction before the Tribunal I fail to see how it is permissible to it to challenge the order of the Tribunal on this ground before this Court. This petition is wholly misconceived, misplaced and ill-advice.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has failed to show any illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal on merits of the case. On merits as it is clearly borne out from the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner the Assurance Company has no objection against that order. Its only objection is that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition and may be to pass the order. The Court put to the counsel for the petitioner and he failed to give any reply to it that even if on this question the company succeeds leaving the fact whether this defence is permitted to be raised or not by the petitioner what ultimately it will gain in the matter. There is yet another reason for which the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise this objection in this writ petition. It is absolute a new point which has been raised first time by the petitioner in this petition. When this point has not been raised by the petitioner before the Tribunal, it cannot be permitted to be raised by it in the petition under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution. Section 140 is inserted in the Act, 1988 with the object and purpose so as to provide immediate financial assistance to the dependents of the deceased who died in the motor accident. This provision has a socio economic object and purpose and it is a statutory provision whereunder in the case of fatal motor accident Rs. 50,000/- has to be awarded to the claimant as an interim compensation on the principle of no fault liability. In view of this underline object, purpose and desire of Parliament, how for it is justified for the Assurance Company to raise this frivolous, flimsy and baseless objection. In view of this benevolent provision under Sec. 140 of the M. V. Act this objection raised has no substance or any concern at this stage in the matter. Instead of filing this petition and wasting the peoples money, the Company should have voluntarily comply with this order/interim order. It is not fair nor expected from the Company to raise such a frivolous, flimsy and baseless objection in a matter where a young lady and a minor child lost their husband and father. ;