IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.424 of 2003 RAJ NATH KUMAR Versus TETARI DEVI & ORS ----------- 19/ 18.07.2008 The order under challenge is dated 16.04.2003 passed by Sri Sheo Kumar Prasad, VIIIth Additional District and Sessions Judge- Cum-Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patna, in Claim Case No.20 of 2002, whereby and whereunder, he has directed the appellant Raj Nath Kumar to pay interim compensation of Rs. 25,000/- under Section 140 of the M.V. Act to respondents no. 1 to 6 within period of thirty days. Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 had filed a Claim Case No. 20 of 2002, against the appellant and five others under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, 1988. On 25.08.2001 at about 11.30 A.M. when the Jeep bearing Registration No. B.R. 13 P-0138 was being driven rashly and negligently, it turned down on the north side of the road in a ditch, wherefrom Prasad Ram was thrown away on the road and he was crushed by another truck bearing Registration No. B.E.Q. 4161 which was also driven by the driver rashly and negligently. F.I.R. was drawn. For the present, the limited question is that the impugned order has been passed by disposing of the petition filed under Section 140 of the M.V. Act in respect of interim compensation to the claimants who happen to be legal heirs of the deceased and for that 50% of the said interim compensation has been divided into truck and Jeep in question. It has been brought to the notice that payment of Rs. - 2 - 25,000/- has been made by the concerned Insurance Company of the truck and so there is no challenge on that part. So far payment of remaining Rs. 25,000/- to be paid by the owner of Jeep in question is concerned, both the appellant as well as respondents Saguni Rai, Dharmendra Kumar Yadav, Ayodhya Rai and Ravindra Kumar in addition to United India Insurance Company has been made Opposite parties. As per claim petition, Saguni Rai, was owner of the Jeep No, BR 13 P-0138 at the relevant time of the accident. The petitioner-appellant Raj Nath Kumar is said to be owner of the Jeep prior to he sold the vehicle to Saguni Rai. Saguni Rai is also said to have subsequently sold the vehicle to third person. In the facts and circumstances, emphasis has been given that impugned order was passed when this appellant Raj Nath Kumar had not made there appearance. There is execution of service report in respect of issuance of notice on this appellant. After receipt of the notice, this appellant refused to put his signature. At this juncture, emphasis has been given that this liability to pay Rs. 25,000/- by way of ad-interim compensation to the claimants should be fastened on the shoulder of Saguni Rai and not on this appellant. For the present, after hearing learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the United India Insurance Company, I do not want to go deep into the matter so as to examine merit of their respective cases as to how it could be said that who was owner of the vehicle at the relevant time. Rather, let this matter be - 3 - decided by the Tribunal itself where parties will have ample opportunity to contest the matter by adducing their evidence, both oral and documentary which should be considered in right perspective with the connected facts and circumstances. For the present, I do not want to interfere with the impugned order. So, the impugned order stands confirmed. However, it shall remain open for the Tribunal to decide the matter and in case the Tribunal holds the respondent Saguni Rai owner of the vehicle at the relevant time, necessary order for refund of money so paid by the appellant be passed. With the aforesaid observation, this appeal is allowed. Sanjeet (Subash Chandra Jha, J.)