Manak Mohta, J. - (1.) THIS Misc. Appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the order of interim Award dt. 14.02.2007 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hanumangarh, whereby the learned Tribunal has directed the appellant to deposit the amount of interim compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/ -.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are stated like that on 16.03.2006, Manoharlal and Parmeshwar were going to Raipur from Chak 7 MZW Dablikala on TVS Victor Motor Cycle No. RJ 30 -3M/0035. At that time, Manoharlal was driving the Motor Cycle. When they reached on the road of Sardarshahar at about 6.00 AM, then, they saw a jeet No. RJ 21 -C/0660 coming towards them. The jeep was being driven by Lalchand (driver) rashly and negligently at high speed. The jeep hit the motor cycle, by which, Manoharlal fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries on his person. He was shifted to hospital, where he was declared dead by the doctor. An FIR No. 27/2006 was registered on the same day at P.S. Pallu Teh. Rawatsar for the offences under Sections 279 and 304 -A, IPC. The parents of the deceased Manoharlal have filed a claim petition along with application for interim Award under ''No Fault Liability '' in the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hanumangarh. The claim case was registered and notices were issued to the non -claimants. After appearance of the parties, the learned Tribunal passed an interim Award dt. 14.02.2007 of Rs. 50,000/ - against non -claimants i.e. owners of the jeep and motor -cycle and the appellant. The non -claimant No. 5 has deposited Rs. 25,000/ - under protest and being aggrieved by that, the present appeal has been filed. Notice of the appeal was given to the respondents. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as the record of the case.
(3.) DURING the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in directing the appellant to pay interim compensation of Rs. 50,000/ - beyond the scope of Section 140 of the M.V. Act. It is submitted that the liability for payment under ''No Fault Liability '' could not be fastened on the insurer or owner of the motor cycle, particularly when the accident was caused by some other offending vehicle i.e. RJ 21 -C/0660. It was also submitted that the deceased Manoharlal was not 3rd party in this case qua the appellant as he himself was driving the motor cycle, therefore, the order passed by the learned Tribunal is required to be quashed and appeal may be allowed.;