- (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the claimant, Lil Mohan Munda, against the order dated 7.6.2007 passed by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in Compensation Case No. 211 of 2005, by which the application filed by the claimant under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act for grant of interim compensation of Rs. 25,000/ - was rejected.
(2.) THE only ground for rejection of the application was on account of discrepancy while recording the number of the vehicle which caused the accident The Tribunal has observed in the impugned order that registration number of the alleged vehicle mentioned in FIR was BR -15P -0151 and in the Fardbayhan also the number was the same i.e. BR -15P -0151, but in the Fardbayan where the name of the accused is mentioned, the number of the bus was mentioned as BR -14P -0151. The Tribunal, therefore, held that the identity of the vehicle is not proved without doubt as to whether the vehicle which caused the accident was BR -14P -151 or it was BR -15P -0151. This was the sole ground on the basis of which the claim petition was rejected. It is no doubt true that the main claim application for determining the compensation is still pending before the Tribunal where the question regarding the identify of the vehicle also will be considered, but the application was in regard to the payment of interim compensation. The very purpose of the provision for payment of interim compensation is grant of monetary relief to the dependents of the deceased to tied over the financial crisis which the family suffers and all disputed questions are meant to be considered at the time of final determination of the claim petition. Therefore, when the question of identify of the vehicle arose, the Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the broad probability of the fact regarding the involvement of the vehicle which caused the accident and when in the appropriate column in the Fardbayan as also in the First Information Report the number of the vehicle was one and the same, which was BR -15P - 0151, the Tribunal, prima facie, had no reason to doubt the correctness of the identify of the vehicle and the question as to what would be the impact of discrepancy of the identify of the vehicle. In the column where the name of the accused is mentioned could have been considered at the time of final determination of the appeal. At the stage of interim compensation, disbelieving the identify of the vehicle was certainly not in consonance with the provisions for which the Act envisages the provision of the payment of interim compensation.
(3.) THE identify of the vehicle having been reasonably proved on account of the fact stated hereinbefore, we are of the view that the Tribunal was not legally justified in disbelieving the identity of the vehicle and refusing to pay the interim compensation. The Tribunal, in our view, could have allowed the payment of interim compensation which was bound to be subject to the result of the final determination of the Compensation. The Tribunal, therefore, was not justified in dismissing the application for grant of interim compensation.;