1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 1743 OF 2010 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. .. Appellant Versus Smt. Hirabai W/o Pundlik Gunjal and others .. Respondents Shri S. V. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri P. V. Barde, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 6. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 13TH OCTOBER, 2010. PER COURT : . Heard Shri S. V. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Barde, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 6. The present respondents/original claimants had filed petition U/Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation on account of death of the deceased Pundalik, who was travelling on the said tractor and trolley which met with an accident. Because of the accident deceased fell down from the said tractor and trolley and succumbed. The claimants are the widow and 2 children of the deceased Pundalik. Along with application U/Sec. 166 the claimants had also filed an application U/Sec. 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation. The Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Aurangabad, allowed the application U/Sec. 140 and granted interim compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the claimants. The Insurance Company has assailed the said order in the present appeal. 2. Shri S. V. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that the policy did not cover the risk of third party. The deceased was sitting on the mud guard of the tractor and he fell down. In such circumstances, there is breach of policy and the Insurance Company would not be liable. Apart from the driver no other person is permitted to travel on the said tractor. According to him the Tribunal has ignored this aspect thereby, has erroneously passed on liability on the appellant to pay the amount. 3. Per contra, Shri Barde, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 6 submitted that the policy covered the trolley as well as one additional workman. The deceased was working on the tractor. The deceased was travelling on the trolley which was 3 attached with the tractor and same was covered. As such, the Tribunal has rightly passed the order. 4. With the assistance of learned counsels for respective parties I have gone through the order and the copy of the FIR and the policy. The perusal of the application U/Sec. 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, shows that the deceased was travelling in the tractor and the trolley. It is not the case of the appellant that the deceased was travelling on the tractor. The trolley was attached to the said tractor and the deceased was travelling on that tractor and trolley. As such, it is too premature at this stage to come to the definite conclusion that the deceased was travelling on the mud guard of the tractor as claimed by the appellant/Insurance Company. At this prima facie stage the intrinsic evidence is not required to be considered. Provisions of Sec. 140 are meant as succour to the claimants. In such circumstances when the record shows that the trolley was also insured and an extra premium for one workman was paid and the deceased was travelling on the tractor and trolley, at this stage the said order cannot be disputed. The party would be at liberty to adduce the evidence and then the Court can come to the definite conclusion. 4 5. In the light of above facts no interference is called for in the order of Tribunal. As such, the appeal is dismissed, however with no order as to costs. 6. The learned counsel for respondents states that, the Insurance Company has deposited an amount of Rs. 50,000/- in this Court. Learned counsels for both the parties requested that the amount be transmitted to the Tribunal. In the light of the same the amount deposited by the Insurance Company be transmitted to the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Aurangabad. [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] bsb/Oct. 10