 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY : NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. FIRST APPEAL NO.399 OF 2005. 1. Abhiman S/o.Gnyanba Tanpure, aged about 44 years, Owner of Tractor No.MH 28 9252, resident of Wadhao Tahsil : Lonar, Distt. Buldana. 2. Sanjay S/o. Abhiman, Tanpure, aged about 27 years, Occu.: Driver, Resident of Wadhav, Tahsil : Lonar, District : Buldana (Original Respondents) (on R.A.) .... APPELLANTS . // VERSUS // 1. Parwatibai Wd/o. Namdeo Shelke, Aged about 40 years, 2. Santosh S/o. Namdeo Shelke, aged about 20 years, 3. Savita W/o. Gangadhar Dande, aged 19 years, 4. Vijay S/o. Namdeo Shelke, aged about 15 years, By G.A.L. Mother – Parwatibai Namdeo Shelke, all residents of Risod, Tahsil : Risod, Distt. Washim. (Original applicants) (On R.A.) 5. The Oriental Insurance Company, Divisional Office, Akola Branch, Washim, Tahsil & Distt. Washim. ( on R.A.) .... RESPONDENTS.  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri S.G.Joshi, Advocate for the Appellants. Shri R.N.Ghuge, Advocate for Respondents No.1 to 4. Shri A.R.Godbole, Advocate for Respondent No.5. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: SMT.VASANTI A NAIK, J. DATED : AUGUST 20, 2008. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Since this Court had, by order dated 6th August, 2008, issued notice to all the respondents that the matter would be heard finally on 20.08.2008 at the end of the admission board, this First Appeal is admitted today and immediately heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this first appeal the appellants challenge the judgment passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Washim on 23rd March, 2005 in Claim Petition No.19/2000, so far as it fastens the liability to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards no fault liability, on the appellants. Few facts giving rise to the first appeal are stated thus : 3. Respondents No.1 to 4 had filed Motor Accident Claim Petition before the Tribunal at Washim seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.6,00,000/- under the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles  Act. The appellants who are the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, were joined as party respondent along with one National Insurance Company and Oriental Insurance Company. It is necessary to note that when the Claim Petition was filed, Oriental Insurance Company was not joined as party and only National Insurance Company was joined as party Non-applicant. During pendency of the proceedings it was noticed that the offending vehicle was insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and not National Insurance Company Ltd. In view of this fact National Insurance Company was deleted and instead Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. was joined as party Non-applicant. The respondent had denied the claim of the claimants. However, after considering the evidence tendered by the parties on record, the Tribunal held that the respondents were jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.3,50,000/- to the claimants. The Tribunal, however, held that Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. was not liable to pay the amount of Rs.50,000/- towards no fault liability as the Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. was not joined as party non-applicant, on the date, when the Tribunal had ordered payment of Rs.50,000/- to the claimants. It is this part of the judgment dated 23rd March, 2005 that is challenged by the appellants in the instant appeal.  4. Shri Sumit Joshi, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal committed serious error in fastening the liability of satisfying the no fault liability claim on the appellants alone and as there was no reason for the Tribunal to exonerate the Insurance Company of its liability to pay amount of Rs.50,000/- to the claimants. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that at the time of deciding the claim petition on merits by the award dated 23rd March, 2005 the respondents were jointly and severally held liable to pay compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- to the claimants. It is not in dispute that the offending vehicle was insured with Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. and in this background after the compensation was computed by the Tribunal, the part of the order fastening the liability to pay the amount under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act on the appellants alone was clearly illegal and unsustainable. 5. Shri Godbole, learned counsel for the Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the award amount under the claim of no fault liability as Oriental Insurance Company was not joined as party Non-applicant to the claim petition at that relevant time and it could not be said that the insurance had notice, through the Court, before the commencement of the  proceedings in which the judgment and award was passed by the Tribunal. The learned counsel for respondent No.5, insurance company, then submitted that since the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. was not party non-applicant on the date when the application was filed by the claimant under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. was not heard before the order was passed on the application under Section 140 of the Act of 1988. The learned counsel for respondent No.5, therefore, sought for dismissal of the appeal. 6. Shri Ghuge, the learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 4 has nothing much to say in the matter and he submitted that either appellants alone or the appellants along with respondent No.5 are liable to pay the amount to respondents No.1 to 4. He, however, submitted that since the claim petition was finally decided by the Tribunal and the compensation amount was determined by the Tribunal it cannot be said that the Insurance Company was not liable to pay amount towards no fault liability, though the Oriental Insurance Company was not a party non-applicant before the order under Section 140 was passed.  7. Heard Shri S.G.Joshi, learned counsel for the appellants, Shri R.N. Ghuge, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 4 and Shri A.R. Godbole, learned counsel for respondent No.5. 8. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusing the judgment passed by the Tribunal it appears that the following points arise for determination in this First Appeal : 1) Whether the Tribunal was justified in fastening the liability to pay the amount awarded under Section 140 of the Act on the appellants alone ? 2) Whether the Oriental Insurance Company was jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of Rs.50,000/- to the claimants ? 3) What order ? 9. To render the findings on the aforesaid issues it is necessary to consider some admitted facts. It is not in dispute that the claimants had filed the claim petition finally against the National Insurance Company and the appellants. It is also not in dispute that when the order was  passed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, respondent No.5 Oriental Insurance Company was not party Non-applicant. After the order under Section 140 was passed, it was realised during the pendency of the proceedings that the offending vehicle was insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and, therefore, the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. was joined as party Non-applicant. After the Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. was joined as party Non-applicant the Tribunal issued notice to the Oriental Insurance Co. and the Oriental Insurance Company was granted an opportunity to contest the claim of the claimants. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. had contested the matter by filing reply to the claim petition and also by cross-examining the witnesses of the claimants. Thus, it is clear that the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. had a notice from the Tribunal before commencement of the trial in the claim petition as the Oriental Insurance Company had filed reply to the claim petition and had also participated in the proceedings at the stage of recording of evidence. 10. From the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act it is clear that though initially the claimants are provided some succour by passing an order under the provisions of Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, this order ultimately merges in the final order or award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by which the claim petition is decided as the  compensation is determined on the basis of the evidence tendered by the parties. In this background, it is necessary to consider whether the Oriental Insurance Company was also jointly and severally liable to pay the amount awarded under Section 140 of the Act. It is also necessary to note that in the initial part of the operative order, the Tribunal had fastened the liability to pay the compensation amount awarded under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act on the appellants as well as the Oriental Insurance Company. After the matter was decided on merits, it cannot be said that the Oriental Insurance Company was not liable to pay no fault liability amount to the claimants. No assistance can be sought by respondent No.5 from the provisions of Section 149 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Since there is a merger of the amount of compensation which is paid towards no fault liability in the amount of final award, it cannot be said that Respondent No.5 is not liable to pay Rs.50,000/-, merely because the Oriental Insurance Company was not party Non-applicant at the time when the order on application under Section 140 was passed. 11. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is allowed. The judgment passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Washim on 23rd March, 2005 is hereby modified. It is hereby held that  the appellants and respondent No.5 are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount awarded under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act to the claimants. The appellants and respondent No.5 are liable to pay amount of Rs.50,000/- to the claimants along with an interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realisation of the amount. The appellants and respondent No.5 are directed to deposit the amount in the trial Court. The counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the amount would be deposited in the trial Court at Washim within a period of eight weeks from today. The appellant is entitled to withdraw the mandatory deposit. In the facts of the case there would be no order as to costs. JUDGE RR..