1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 363 OF 1994 The New India Assurance Company, Ltd. Latur .. Appellant Versus 1. Riyasatbi W/o Mansoorsab and others .. Respondents Shri D. S. Kulkarni, Advocate h/f Shri S. L. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Appellant. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are served. Shri V. D. Salunke, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 - absent. CORAM : K. K. TATED, J. DATE : 22ND NOVEMBER, 2010. PER COURT : . Heard learned counsel Mr. Kulkarni for appellant/original respondent No. 3. None appeared for the respondents though they are duly served. 2. The present appeal preferred by the original respondent Nos. 3/Insurance Company against the order dated 11th November, 1992 passed by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, 2 Latur, below Exhibit 5 in M.A.C.P. No. 82/1992. 3. Few facts of the matter are as under : On 23rd October, 1991, deceased Mansurmiya was carrying his agricultural produce to sale at Market Yard Latur in a trolley. He was travelling in the same trolley. On the way trolley met with an accident and Mansurmiya succumbed to the injuries. Therefore, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 original claimants preferred application U/Sec. 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal at Latur claiming sum of Rs. 50,000/- under the no fault liability. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that, there was breach of terms and conditions of Insurance Policy such as (a) the deceased was travelling in trolley as a labourer and (b) the driver of the Tractor was not holding valid license. Therefore, Insurance Company is not liable to pay no fault liability. He relied on written statement filed by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5/original respondent Nos. 1 and 2 i. e. owner and driver. He submits that owner specifically stated in his written statement that the deceased was travelling in the trolley as a labourer and not as a owner of his own goods. On the basis of these submissions, the learned counsel appearing for appellant states that Insurance Company is not liable to pay no fault 3 liability. 5. It is pertinent to note that in claim petition U/Sec. 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3/original claimants specifically stated that on 23rd October, 1991 deceased was travelling in trolley along with his own agricultural products to sell at Latur market. Whether the deceased was travelling along with his own goods or was travelling as a labourer can be decided only after recording the evidence. Only because the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in their written statement stated that the deceased was travelling as a labourer cannot be considered at the time of deciding application U/Sec. 140 of the Act. The provisions of Sec. 140 of the M. V. Act are made for the purpose of immediate relief to the family of deceased and our High Court has taken view that disputed position of fact can be decided only at the time of hearing in the main matter after recording evidence. 6. The second contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for appellant that driver was not holding valid license is not acceptable because the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in their written statement in para 2 specifically stated that at the relevant time the driver was holding valid license. Para 2 of the said written statement reads as under : 4 2. That, the vehicle involved in the accident was fully insured with respondent No. 3 at the relevant time of accident and respondent No. 1 was holding valid license at the relevant time of accident and therefore entire liability if any may be fixed on respondent No. 3/Insurance Company. 7. Considering these facts, I do not find any substance in the present appeal and the same is dismissed. 8. The amount deposited by the appellant in this Court be transferred to the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal at Latur in MACP No. 82/1992 along with interest. 9. The Tribunal is directed to dispose of the main petition as early as possible within one year from the receipt of writ from this Court. The tribunal is further directed to consider the application of respondent Nos. 1 to 3/original claimants if they file for withdrawal of amount on its own merits. [K. K. TATED, J.] bsb/Nov. 10