1 fa513 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.513 OF 2011 Sushila Eknath Pawar & Anr. ...Appellants vs. Bhagwan Ganpat Patil & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Nilesh Patil for the appellants Mr.Amol Gatne for the respondent no.1 Mr.Vinod Mahadik for respondent-B.M.C CORAM : A.S.OKA,J. DATE : JUNE 27, 2011 P.C.: 1 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. The appellants are the applicants in the claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). Impugned order has been passed on claim petition filed under section 140 of the said Act. 2 The case made out by the appellants is that the employer of the deceased was the owner of a concrete machine. The deceased was carrying the concrete machine for his work and the machine was being carried by a trailer attached to a Tractor. The deceased was sitting in the trailer. It is alleged that as a result of the negligence on the part of the driver of the tractor, the deceased fell down from the trailer and sustained injuries. The deceased succumbed to the injuries. 3 By the impugned Judgment and Order, the Tribunal has directed the owner and driver of the tractor and trailer to pay compensation on account of no fault liability. 2 fa513 However, insurer of the tractor is held as not liable. 4 After having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, I find that there is no merit in the appeal. The finding recorded by the Tribunal is that though the tractor was insured with the third respondent, the trailer was not insured with the third respondent. 5 The finding of the tribunal has been rendered while deciding the application under section 140 of the said Act. The remedy under section 140 is summary in nature and therefore, the findings recorded while deciding the said application are not binding on the Tribunal at the time of finally deciding claim petition under section 166 of the said Act. 6 Subject to what is observed above, no case is made out for interference. Appeal is dismissed. However, while deciding the claim application under section 166 of the said Act, the Tribunal will not be bound by the findings recorded in the impugned order. JUDGE