IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Misc. Appeal No.434 of 2009 ====================================================== Kamlesh Prasad, S/o Laldhar Prasad of Village – Nigarha, P.O. and P.S. - Sigori, District – Patna. .... ....Opposite Party Appellant Versus 1. Pujan Rai , S/o Sri Jamuna Rai, Resident of Village – Lekhan Tola, P.O. & P.S. - Bihta, District – Patna (Opposite Party). 2. Smita Devi, W/o Late Rakesh Kumar 3. Roshan Kumar (Minor) Son of Late Rakesh Kumar 4. Munni Kumari (Minor) Daughter of Late Rakesh Kumar 5. Niketa Kumari (Minor) daughter of Late Rakesh Kumar, Minors are under the guardianship of their mother Smita Devi, the natural guardian who has no interest adverse to those of the minors. 6. Santi Devi, W/o Late Nawal Kishore Yadav, All residents of Mohalla Noor Pur, P.S. - Malsalami, District – Patna. .... .... Claimants Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. S.K.Bhartee ====================================================== 6 11-07-2011 Heard Sri S.K. Bhartee, learned counsel for the appellant. The present appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against an order passed on remand by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge IX, Patna, in Claim Case No. 58 of 2005. The appellant who is owner of offending vehicle i.e. truck bearing registration no. HR-13-1696 has succeeded in defeating the right of the claimant for interim compensation for a long time. From the order it appears that after filing of the claim case by respondent no. 2, whose husband died in an accident in which the vehicle of the appellant was involved, in the said case a petition under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act was filed for ad-interim compensation and same was allowed by the court below. Thereafter the appellant preferred an appeal before this court vide M.A. No. 75 of 2006. By order dated 05.08.2008 a bench of this court set aside the impugned order and remitted back the matter to the Tribunal for passing a fresh order after giving both sides an opportunity of hearing and considering the objections raised on behalf of the appellant. The order passed in M.A. No. 75 of 2006 is on record as Annexure – 1 to the memo ofappeal. After the matter was remitted back one another development took place in which the driver of the offending vehicle who was put on trial got an order of acquittal on 03.09.2008 in Bihta P.S. Case No. 49 of 2005/G.R. Case No. 412 of 2005. Emboldened with the order of acquittal the appellant who is the owner of the vehicle filed a petition on 28.11.2008 before the court below praying therein to reject the claim petition dated 19.08.2005 and made a prayer for refund of Rs. 25,000/- which was paid as ad-interim compensation out of interim compensation amount of Rs. 50,000/-. The petition filed by the appellant was rejected by impugned order i.e. order dated 26.05.2009. Sri Bhartee, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that truck in question was standing by the side of the road and husband of the claimant died in an accident in which another vehicle was involved and due to that reason the driver of the appellant, who was charge-sheeted by the Police, was acquitted by the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Danapur. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to Annexure – 2 to the petition which is photo-copy of order dated 3rd September, 2008 passed in Bihta P.S. Case No. 49 of 2005/G.R. Case No. 412 of 2005. On this ground alone it has been prayed to set aside the order. In the present case it is not in dispute that driver of the appellant was charge-sheeted by the Police for an accident in which husband of the claimant died. On perusal of the impugned order it is further evident that prima facie there were materials on record to suggest that due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle accident had taken place. It is also clear that the truck after seizure was released in favour of the petitioner being owner of the vehicle. After going through the impugned order this court is also prima facie satisfied that there were materials on record to draw at least an inference that in the accident the vehicle of the appellant was involved. In a case for interim compensation filed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act it is not necessary to lead evidence for coming to the conclusion as to who was responsible for the accident. Section 140 (3) makes it clear that in such claim claimant shall not be required to plead and establish the case. For better appreciation it is apt to quote Section 140(3) of the Motor Vehicle Act which is as follows: “In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), 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.” The court is of the opinion that if Tribunal is prima facie satisfied with the materials on record the Tribunal is competent to pass an order for compensation under Section 140 of the Act. The impugned order makes it clear that the court below had examined the materials on record and thereafter the petition filed by the appellant for rejecting the claim petition was rejected. The order impugned assigned a detailed reason which requires no interference. Accordingly, the appeal stands rejected. PRAFUL KUMAR/- (Rakesh Kumar, J)