N.L. Ganguly, J.
1. These first appeal from orders are directed against the interim award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award an amount Rs. 25000/- as interim compensation to the heirs and legal representatives of the victims in the accident. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the order awarding the interim compensation is not warranted according to law. He submitted that the vehicle in which the victims were traveling was insured and the Court below has wrongly awarded the amount to be paid by the appellant Company to the owner of the vehicle. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that it is the sole liability for the Insurance Company to pay the compensation. He also submitted that the Court below without considering this aspect for proper prospective repel the submission of the appellant.
2. In support of the submissions, learned Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgments reported in 1985 Accident Claims Journal, page 1,The OrientalFire and General Insurance Company Ltd., v. Beasa Devi and Ors.The arguments of the appellants in the said case is that the law for payment of compensation under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was solely on the Insurance Company provided its proof that the vehicles in question by which the accident took place was insured. The Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court repel this submission and held that the Insurance Company is also liable as the owner of the vehicle. This does not cast exclusive liability on the Insurance Company. The Division Bench was of the view that the provisions of Section 92-A of the Act was beneficial legislation and the interpretation of the law should be made. Keeping in view the intention of the legislation while interpreting the said provision. The other case relied by learned Counsel for the appellant is 1986 Accident Claims Journal 120, New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Chotinabee and Ors. whose proposition of law has been stated by the Andhra Pradesh High Court which do not render any assistance in this case decision reported in 1986 Accident Claims Journal 196, G. Prabhakar and Anr. v. Thummanappli Brahmaih and Anr. by Andhra Pradesh High Court. The number of case law considered in the said judgment is not of any assistance for the submissions of learned Counsel for appellant. In none of the rulings it has been said that the liability is exclusively on the Insurance Company.
3. Learned appellant cited two decisions of Single Judge of our Court reported in 1986 Accident claims Journal, page 202 Sant Ram v. Surya Pal and Anr., which is a case under Section 92-A of the 39 Act. The Court has considered the no fault liability in a case of injury and interim award was awarded in that case. This Court by a Single Judge decision held that while awarding interim compensation, it was necessary for the Court to have recorded some finding in respect of the nature of injury, whether it was a permanent disability requiring minimum payment of interim compensation. Thus this case is also of no assistance to the decision of the present appeal as all these are cases of death in the accident.
4. The other decision of our High Court, 1989 Accidents Claims Journal 110, Satyadeo Singh v. Vidyawati Devi and Ors. The learned Single Judge was considering the law of payment of interim compensation under Section 92-A of the 1939 Motor Vehicles Act. The Court held in the said decision that before passing an order for payment of interim compensation, it was necessary for the Court/Tribunal to prima facie enquire and record the finding about the liability of the Insurance Company for payment of compensation. Learned Counsel for the appellant referred the finding recorded by the Tribunal in the present case that the number of persons carried in the vehicle at the time of accident was about 36-37 persons. If the vehicle which met with the accident carried so many persons at the time of accident prima facie the Tribunal below enquired and was satisfied about the liability of the owner of the vehicle. It cannot be said that the Tribunal was not considering the liability of the Insurance Company in respect of payment of the compensation. Thus the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant relying the decision aforementioned is also of no assistance in the present case. The learned Counsel for the appellant also relied a decision reported in Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Beasa Devi. This decision under the old Act which also says that the Tribunal is entitled to make an award under Section 92-A as soon as it comes to conclusion that the vehicle of the owner was involved in the accident which was insured correctness of the other objections by owner or Insurance Company should be decided thereafter. It was not required to decide the liability of either at this stage. This decision of the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court does not laid the law that while passing order for payment of interim compensation, detailed enquiry and findings are prepared to be made by the Tribunal. Prima facie Tribunal was satisfied in the present case that vehicle was insured but the conditions of the insurance policy were not completed with 36-37 persons were traveling in the vehicle at the time of the accident which is beyond the prescribed limit of persons to be carried in such vehicle. Thus this decision is also of no assistance to the appellant, may help the case of the respondents in certain aspects.
Another decision of AIR 1985 Karnataka page 171 Mohammad Iqbal v. Himaiya and Ors. where the Karnataka High Court was of the view that according to provisions of the Sections 92-A, 110 CC of the 1939 Motor Vehicles Act, liability of the owner alone is not to be enquired and Insurance Company can be made liable for compensation under Section 92-A.
5. After considering the arguments of the Counsel for the appellant Mr. Dobhal, I am not impressed with the submissions advanced by him. The interim compensation has been granted after finding that the vehicle at the time of accident although insured, but the number of persons carried at the time of accident was 36-37, much beyond the permissible limits. Thus Tribunal was justified in awarding the interim compensation payable by the appellant, owner of the vehicle. I do not consider that these appeals are worth admitting. The appeals are dismissed summarily. The amount of Rs. 12,500/- deposited by the appellant in each appeal as per requirements under Section 173 of the Act be remitted back within three weeks from today with the Tribunal, which may be adjusted towards the balance amount payable as interim compensation payable to the claimants.
The findings recorded above was not prejudiced the case of the appellant in the final disposal of the claim petition.