Radha Mohan Prasad, J.
1.All these four appeals arise out of the claim cases filed by the claimants on account of the death or permanent disablement in the accident which occurred by the bus bearing No. BPP 515 at Jamuhar on G.T. Road for which Dehri P.S. Case No. 106 of 1992 was registered. The claimants filed the certified copy of the F.I.R. and photocopy of the post-mortem report as well as the medical report to substantiate their claims. In some of the cases, the claimants also filed photocopy of the certificate of the appellant company which shows that the vehicle in question was insured with the said company.
2. The appellant company as well as the owner of the vehicle appeared in the claim cases and the company filed its written statement.
3. From the impugned order it appears that in the written statement the company admitted the accident on the alleged date and place of the occurrence and also the death of the deceased in each of the claim cases. The insurance of the alleged vehicle with the company was also admitted.
4. In such circumstances, the learned 6th Additional District Judge, Sasaram, held the claimants to be entitled for the compensation as liability without fault in terms of the provisions contained in Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act (in short 'the Act'). Accordingly, the learned court below found that the owner of the vehicle is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000 as compensation as liability without fault to the claimants and since the vehicle was insured with the appellant company, the court directed the company to indemnify the owner and pay Rs. 25,000/- to the claimants within one month of the impugned order, failing which the company was made liable to pay an interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the said amount from the date of the order till the payment is made.
5. It was contended by learned Counsel for the appellant in all the four appeals that the Claims Tribunal has illegally passed the said order without giving specific finding as to by which vehicle the accident took place in order to fix the liability under Section 140 of the Act. The said finding was essential as if it is held that both the vehicles were responsible for the accident, then the owners of both the vehicles and their insurance company would be liable for compensation. Further, it was contended that the F.I.R. shows the discrepancy in the number of the vehicle mentioned therein and thus, also the Tribunal was required to record its specific finding. Learned counsel submitted that the insurance company has admitted only in regard to the accident but not with the bus which was insured with the appellant. Thus, according to him, the Tribunal has committed serious error in passing the impugned order without holding summary trial.
6. In view of the specific finding in regard to admission of the appellant company in the impugned order that the accident on the alleged date and time had taken place by the alleged bus which was insured with the appellant company and the submissions aforementioned made by the learned Counsel, I repeatedly asked him to produce a copy of the written statement, but he failed to produce the same.
7. In such circumstances, I am constrained to accept the finding of the Tribunal that the appellant company in its written statement admitted the accident on the alleged date and time by the alleged bus and also admitted the fact that the vehicle was insured with the company. It is not disputed that the F.I.R. contains the allegation about the death of the deceased.
8. Section 140 of the Act deals with the liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle of no fault. It provides that where death or permanent disablement of any person has resulted from an accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle or motor vehicles, the owner of the vehicle shall, or, as the case may be, the owners of the vehicles shall, jointly and severally, be liable to pay compensation in respect of such death or disablement in accordance with the provisions of this section. Sub-section (2) provides for the quantum and Sub-section (3) provides that the claimant shall not be required to plead and establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner or owners of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person.
9. Thus, in my opinion, in view of the admitted fact that the death or permanent disablement of the person involved in the accident was with the vehicle which was insured with the appellant company, there is no infirmity in the impugned orders of the learned Additional District Judge.
10. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in these appeals and the same are summarily dismissed.