- (1.) HEARD the Counsel for the appellant and the Respondents -Claimants in the limitation matter.
(2.) IN spite of service of notice, the respondent -owner of the vehicle has not appeared. The delay is of 172 days, which has sufficiently been explained. Hence limitation petition (I.A. No. 1399 of 2007) is allowed and delay in filing the appeal is condoned. We have also heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties on merit of the appeal which is directed against the interim award dated 1 .6.2006 passed by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in Compensation Case No. 56 of 2004 whereby a sum of Rs.50,000/has been awarded as interim compensation under Section 140 of the M. V. Act. The impugned order under Section 140 of the M.V. Act was passed on 1.6.2006.
(3.) IN the impugned order, the Tribunal has mentioned that the Insurance Company admitted that the vehicle was insured with the appellant. Subsequently a RtJview Petition was filed by the appellant for review of the earlier order on the ground, inter alia. that the policy of insurance was issued by the appellant but subsequently when the cheque, by which premium was paid, was dishonored because of insufficient fund, the appellant cancelled the policy and alleged to have intimated the owner of the vehicle.;