: .ll«iaH!8Sa^-!..^-i HiGH CQURT QF CHHATTISGARH AT Bii-ASPUR ie Bench : Hon'bJe Shri Diiip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. NON.APPLiCANT RESPONDENTS i.A. (CS No.334/2008 Prabhat Kumar Du&ey, son of Biharifa! Dubey, aged about 50 years, Casie Bramhan, resident of Vinoba Nagar, Bilaspur, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) Versys Bandhuram, aged 53 years, son of Late Paredhiya, Caste Kanwar, resident of Badmar, Tahsi! Kartaia, District Korba (C.G.) T. R. Patros, aged 23 years, son of Rafei, Caste Christian, resident of Viliage Chhobra, Thana Chhobra, District Emakulum (Kerla), Presently Drh/er, Gayatri Bus Service, Biiaspur, Distrjct Biiaspur (C.G.) The New India Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Branch Office, Near R.D.A. Building, G. E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) Apoeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Shri H. B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Ms. for the appellant. Sangeeta Mishra, counset ORAL ORDER (Passea' on 14ih March, 2008) Heard on I.A.No.2, an application for taking document on record. (2) Considered and altowed. Document is taken on record. (3) Heard on admission. (4) The appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 12-02-2008 passed by 2nd Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunaf, (F.T.C.), Korba (henceforth " the Tribunal") in Claim Case No.31/2007 whereby an interim compensation of Rs.25,000/- was awarded under Section 140 of the Motor VehiclesAct. — . (5) Brief facts are that on 17-07-1987 one Dasha Ram, aged 28 years died due fo an accident with Bus Registration No.M.K.L.-6501 near the viliage Sakdukaia. (6) !t is not disputed that the appeliant herein is owner of the bus and that T.R, Patros, respondent No.2 herein was driving the bus at the time of the accident. It is aiso not in dispute that a criminal prosecution has been iaunched against T. R. Patros under Section 304-A ofthe IPC. (7) The learned Tribunal has noted that the appellant herein had faiied to produce proof of the fact that the said bus was insured on the date of accident. It also noted that the cover note of insurance filed by the appellant herein was not signed by any authorized signatory of the insurance company and on that basis, it fastened liability to pay interim compensation of Rs.25,OOQ/- on the appeliant herein. The appel!ant has filed a copy of cover note in this appeal also, perusa! of which shows that i{ is not signed by any authorized signatory. The Tribunal was therefore justified in awarding interim compensation on principte of no fault iiability on the owner ofthe vehicle. (8) Placing reliance on Genera! Travels, Bangaiore and others vs. Chandrakala Shetty and others, 1982 A.C.J. (Supp.) S97, it was also urged that on the date of accident, the appeitant was in possession of the bus under a hire purehase agreement. However, under Section 2 sub Clause (30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, definition of Owner in case of a motor vehicle covers a person in possession of the vehicle under a hire purchase agreement. In this view of the matter, the argument advanced by tearned Senior Advocate for the appellant does not hold good. \: ""^.^ (9) In this view of the matter, there is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. i.A.No.1, an application for stay stands disposed of. ss- °""'R""S.' Tumane x V