IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.622 of 2010 United India Insurance Company Limited, through the Branch Manager, Civil Line, G.T. Road, Sasaram, P.S. Sasaram, District- Rohtas, Appeal and Appellant through the Deputy Manager and Constituted Attorney , Regional Office, United India Insurance Company Limited, Third Floor, Chanakya Commercial Complex, R-Block, Patna -----------O.P.2/ Appellant Versus 1. Meena Devi @ Meena Kuer w/o Lt. Ramchandra Seth @ Ramchandra Gupta 2. Jeetu Kumar S/O Lt. Ramchandra Seth @ Ramchandra Gupta 3. Manoj Kumar S/o Lt. Ramchandra Seth @ Ramchandra Gupta 4. Karan Kumar, S/o Lt. Ramchandra Seth @ Ramchandra Gupta (2 to 4 are minors under the natural guardian mother, Respondent -1) All the above are resident of Bhusaula, P.S./P.O. Darihat, Dist.-Rohtas ( Sasaram) --------- Claimants/Respondents 5. Bhinder Singh S/O Gurudas Singh, resident of Village/P.O Ghumandgarh, P.S. Bassi Pathana, Dist- Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab ( Owner of truck) ------------------ O.P.-1/ Respondent 6. Pinder Singh @ Iinder Singh s/o Gurdas Singh, resident of Gumangarh, P.S. Bassi Pathana, Dist- Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab (Driver of truck) ---------------------- O.P.-3 / Respondent ----------- 03 13-04-2011 Heard Sri Durgesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant. The present appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the order dated 5.5.2010 passed by 2nd Additional District Judge-cum- Motor Vehicle Claim Tribunal , Rohtas at Sasaram. By the said order, the learned court below has allowed the claim petition filed under Section 140 of the M.V. Act and directed the appellant to pay interim compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- to the claimants. It is not in dispute that the deceased husband of the claimant / Respondent no.1 died in an accident, in which the truck in question was insured with the appellant. However, 2 learned counsel for the appellant has raised several grounds for assailing the order. It was submitted that in the claim petition initially it was alleged that the deceased was driving the vehicle. However, after the completion of the investigation, it was noticed that the driver of the truck in question was one Permanand Prasad, not the husband of the claimant/ Respondent no.1. It has further been submitted that in any event it was a case, in which both drivers of tractor and truck were driving rashly and negligently and, as such, the compensation should have been directed to be paid equally by both persons i.e. the owner of the tractor as well as the appellant, which has not been done by them. It has also been submitted that the claim petition was liable to be rejected due to non-joinder of necessary party. Since the petition for interim compensation was filed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, there was no necessity for the claimant to establish each and every fact. Section 140 (3) and ( 4) is very much clear, which reads as follows: 140. Liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle of no fault.___ (1)--------- (2)---------- “(3)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. (4) A claim for compensation under sub-section (1) shall not be defeated by reason of any wrongful act, neglect or default of the person in respect of whose 3 death or permanent disablement the claim has been made nor shall the quantum of compensation recoverable in respect of such death or permanent disablement be reduced on the basis of the share of such person in the responsibility for such death or permanent disablement.” Moreover, in such trivial matter, the Court is of the opinion that the order of interim compensation may not be disturbed. From the order, it is evident that initially the appellant had denied Insurance Policy in his earlier written statement. However, in their additional written statement, it was admitted that the vehicle in question was insured at the time of accident. In view of the facts and circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that the order impugned cannot be interfered with. The appeal stands rejected. The fact remains that the accident had taken place long back in the year 2004 and we are in the year 2011. The matter has already been delayed for a considerable long period. The amount deposited at the time of filing of this appeal may be remitted to the tribunal / court below for payment to the claimant. NKS/- ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)