- (1.) This appeal has been filed by the claimant under section 173 Motor Vehicles Act against the award dated 5.3.2008 passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge Fast Rack No. 7) Jaipur City Jaipur in Claim case No. 108/2006 (1606/2004), whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant was rejected.
(2.) The facts have been set out in the impugned judgment and hence I am not repeating the same here except wherever necessary.
(3.) Mr. Virendra Agarwal, the learned counsel for the appellant has requested to this court that in the light of the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Indra Devi and others vs. Bagada Ram and another, 2010 ACJ 2451 insurance company and the learned counsel for the claimant jointly made a request to this court that the matter should be remanded back to the MACT to decide the matter as a fresh on issues 2 and 3. The learned counsel for the insurance company placed reliance on Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Angad Kol and others, 2009 ACJ 1411 and argued that the amount that has been paid under no fault liability may not be recovered if the claim petition is dismissed. The Apex Court in paras 4 to 8 held as under : 4. The claimants are now before this Court aggrieved by the direction to refund the amount of interim compensation to the insurance company alongwith interest. 5. The impugned direction is clearly erroneous and unsustainable in law. The Tribunal has completely failed to realize the true nature and character of the compensation in terms of section 140 of the Act. The marginal heading to section 140 describes it as based 'on the principle of no fault'. As the expression 'no fault' suggests the compensation under section 140 is regardless of any wrongful act, neglect or default of the person in respect of whose death the claim is made. 6. We have examined the nature of the 'no fault compensation' payable under section 140 of the Act in Eshwarappa @ Maheshwarappa and Anr. vs. C.S. Gurushanthappa and Anr. (Civil Appeal No.7049 of 2002), the judgment in which is pronounced today. We, therefore, do not wish to elaborate the point further. Suffice to say that in view of our judgment in Civil Appeal No.7049 of 2002, the Tribunal was patently in error, in directing for the refund of the amount of 'no fault compensation' already paid to the claimants, to the insurance company. The High Court was equally in error in missing out this grave mistake in the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal and not setting it right. 7. The present appeal must, therefore, be allowed. The order of the Tribunal insofar as it permits the insurance company (respondent no.2) to 4 recover the amount of interim compensation alongwith the interest from the claimants/ appellants is set aside. 8. In the result the appeal is allowed but with no order as to costs. " ;