:1: :1: :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.265 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1001 OF 2009 M/s.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. .. Appellants. Vs. Dr.Mrs.Manisha Sampat Nimbalkar & Anr. .. Respondents. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.266 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1002 OF 2009 M/s.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. .. Appellants. Vs. Tushar Rohidas Nimbalkar and Anr. .. Respondents. Mr.S.R.Singh i/b M/s.S.R.Singh & Co. for the appellants. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 5TH MARCH, 2009. DATED : 5TH MARCH, 2009. DATED : 5TH MARCH, 2009. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This appeal is directed against similar orders dated 12.11.2008 by which the applications at Exhibit-5 filed by the victim - claimants under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, have been allowed. By the impugned orders the appellant - :2: :2: :2: insurance company and respondent no.2 in both the appeals are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.25,000/- to the applicants towards "No Fault Liability Compensation" within one month from the date of the applications. The impugned order in one of the appeals read thus: "1. The claimant Manisha suffered injuries resulting in permanent disability on account of a vehicular accident dated 19/10/2007 having involvement of a trailer bearing RTO registration No.HR-38-E-7465 owned by the Opponent No.1 and insured with the Opponent No.2, she claims Rs.25,000/- towards No Fault Liability Compensation. 2. The Opponent No.1 proceeded ex-parte. The Opponent No.2, Insurance company, filed its reply at Exh.15. In the reply Exh.4, the Opponent No.2, Insurance Company did not dispute the involvement of the offending vehicle in the said accident and that the said vehicle being insured with the Opponent No.2 on the date of accident. 3. The applicant has filed on record copies of police papers including FIR and Spot Panchanama which demonstrates the involvement of the offending vehicle in the said accident. The details as regards the accident are verified from Form Com."AA". Form Com."BB" dated 28/10/2007 demonstrates that the applicant suffered permanent disability to the extent of 10%. In the circumstances, the necessary ingredients for the purpose of application under Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are duly satisfied. Hence following order." 3. Mr.Singh, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the claim made by the claimants in these applications is bogus and that the respondent - :3: :3: :3: victims did not sustain any injury in the accident. In support of his contentions he drew my attention to the medical papers of the victims. I have perused the medical papers and the impugned orders and in my prima facie opinion, the impugned orders do not suffer from any error of law or fact. The learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has allowed the application under section 140 of the Act on the basis of the very same material to which my attention was drawn by the learned counsel for the appellants. Prima facie the observations made in the concluding paragraphs of the impugned orders and more particularly in paragraph 3, in my opinion, cannot be faulted. The impugned orders warrant no interference in the instant appeals. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. However, this shall not preclude the insurance company from establishing the fact during trial that the victims did not suffer any injury. The observations made in the impugned orders and in this order are only prima facie in nature. The Tribunal shall deal with the claim applications on merits and without being influenced by the orders passed on the applications at Exhibit-5. The appeals are dismissed. Consequently, civil applications are also disposed of. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)