1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR F.A.NO.365 of 2009 National Insurance Co.Ltd. ..vs.. Laxmibai Uttam Murzade and ors. F.A.NO.367 OF 2009 National Insurance Co.Ltd. .vs.. Santosh Daulatraoji Gadekar and ors. =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mr.Shashikant BorkarAdv. for the appellant. Mr.S.C.Mehadia Adv. for respondent no.2. Mr.N.N.Jaiswal Adv. h/f Mr.Ghare for resp.1 to 4. C ORAM : C.L.Pangarkar, J. DATED : 15th April, 2010. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents. 2. The Insurance Company has preferred these two appeals against the order passed by the Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal, Yavatmal on an application under Section 140 of the M.V.Act. 3. Claimant Laxmibai had filed a claim petition in respect of death of her son while Santosh Gadekar 2 had filed a claim petition for injuries sustained by him. 4. Both these applications filed by these two claimants came up before the Tribunal. The contention raised by the present appellant/Insurance Company is that the Tractor was insured with it but not the Trolley in which the deceased and claimant Santosh were travelling. 5. The learned Judge of the Tribunal did not consider this aspect and proceeded to pass an order directing the Insurance Company to reimburse the owner with respect to the no fault liability. Feeling aggrieved, this appeal has been preferred. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant has already deposited the entire amount of the no fault liability in both the matters in the court. The question as to whether the trolley was or was not insured and whether the liability of the appellant arises in view of the fact that the tractor was actually insured with the appellant, can be decided by the Tribunal on merits. That question cannot be gone into here at this stage. In the circumstances, I find that it would be appropriate to set aside the order passed by the Tribunal directing the Insurance Company to pay the amount to the claimants and remit the matter back to the trial court with a direction that the trial court shall hear 3 the main claim petition on merit and decide the question as to whether the liability of the Insurance Company arises in the matter, in view of the fact that the tractor was insured with the insurance Company and not the trolley. The question as to whether the trolley was also insured or not may also be gone into. Since the matter is remitted back to the trial court, it would be appropriate to direct the trial court not to pay the amount deposited in the court towards no fault liability until decision of the main petition. The trial court shall now decide both the main petitions within period of three months finally after giving opportunity to both the parties to lead the evidence in the matter. The appeals stand disposed of. JUDGE. chute