IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.587 of 2007 BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR. Versus RUKHSANA KHATOON & ORS ----------- 12. 27.10.2010 Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. (2) Nobody appears on behalf of the respondents. (3) This Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the United India Insurance Company Limited against the order dated 24.07.2007 passed by District Judge- cum-M.V.C.T., Siwan in compensation case no. 12 of 2005 allowing the application under Section 140 of the M.V. Act filed by the respondents. (4) It appears that the claimants-respondents filed the aforesaid compensation case claiming compensation alleging that in a motor accident, Kitabuddin, the son of the claimants-respondents died. F.I.R. was lodged and the motor vehicle involved in accident was BR 29A-8981. In that claim case, the appellant, Insurance Company was made opposite party on the ground that the vehicle involved was insured by the appellant. 2 (5) A separate application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act was filed by the claimants claiming interim compensation of Rs.50,000. The claimants also filed a photocopy of the insurance cover note. (6) The appellant, Insurance Company filed a rejoinder to the application under Section 140 of the M.V. Act alleging that the cover note seems to be forged because it does not bear seal of the office of the appellant. (7) After hearing the parties, the learned Court below came to the conclusion that there is no specific denial made by the appellant regarding the insurance of the motor vehicle and accordingly allowed the application and directed the appellant to pay Rs.50,000 within one month to the claimants. (8) The learned counsel, Mr. Ram Chandra Lal Das appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that in fact the vehicle in question was not insured with the appellant, Insurance Company but the learned Court below has wrongly allowed the application under Section 140 of the M.V. Act. 3 (9) As stated above, nobody appears on behalf of the respondents in spite of service of notice. (10) Lower Court record was called for. From perusal of the Lower Court record, it appears that a photocopy of the cover note has been filed by the claimants. From perusal of the said cover note, it appears that the vehicle number has been mentioned clearly and it further appears that the date of accident is covered by the said cover note. From perusal of the rejoinder to the application under Section 140 of the M.V. Act, it appears that the only defence taken by the appellant is to the effect that there is no seal of the office/any branch office of the appellant on the cover note and the owner of the vehicle should have filed the original insurance paper but the owner has not appeared. Therefore, the only defence of the appellant is that the cover note seems to be forged and fabricated. However, it appears that no action was taken by the Insurance Company nor any specific plea has been taken that in fact, the document is forged document. Moreover, the learned trial court has relied upon the said document and prima facie found that the vehicle involved in accident is 4 insured with the appellant and therefore, allowed the application under Section 140 of the M.V. Act. (11) In view of the above facts, at this stage, no finding can be given that the vehicle was not insured with the appellant. It is a matter of trial. If the appellant stick to the defence that the vehicle involved in accident was not insured and that the cover note filed by the applicant-respondent is a forged document, the appellant is at liberty to adduce evidence and establish this fact before the trial court at the time of trial. (12) In view of the above facts, I find no merit in this Miscellaneous Appeal and accordingly, this Miscellaneous application is dismissed at the admission stage itself. The statutory amount deposited before this Court shall be transferred to the Court concerned, so that it may be paid to the claimants, if not already paid. Saurabh ( Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)