1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1130 /2009 (Urmila w/o Hitendra Pande vs. Ghanshyam s/o Chookhanlal Gupta and 2 others ) ..................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ..................................................................................................................................................................... Mr Anand Deshpande, Adv.h/for Mr F T Mirza, Adv.for appellant: CORAM : A.P. BHANGALE, J. DATED : 1 st July, 2010. 1. Heard. By this Appeal, the appellant has challenged the order, which was passed at an interim stage, under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. The facts in brief are that: deceased Sarojbai Gupta was travelling by minidor bearing Registration No. MH 29- M- 1087 carrying bamboo products towards Digras. It is contended that the Driver of the said vehicle drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the tree, as a result, the vehicle turned turtle causing fatal accident, in which victim Sarojbai died on the spot. The vehicle was admittedly owned by appellant-Urmila Hitendra Pande; but according to appellant since the vehicle was insured with respondent No.3 - New India Assurance Company Limited, the insurer ought to have been directed to pay the amount of compensation under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 2 3. I have perused the impugned order. It is stated that the deceased was owner of the goods, but there was no document to show that she had hired the offending motor vehicle. Therefore, since owner of the motor vehicle is primarily responsible to pay compensation whereas liability of insurer is vicarious and conditional. It appears that the learned Chairman of the MACT Yavatmal directed the owner of the offending vehicle to pay compensation for liability for no fault in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- at an interim stage of the proceedings. It is also made clear by the learned Chairman that the owner who would pay sum of Rs. 50,000/- shall be indemnified by insurer if he proves that the deceased was hirer of the vehicle. Therefore, no legal infirmity whatsoever is found in the impugned order since the owner is primarily responsible to the passenger travelling in his motor vehicle particularly when the deceased was travelling in a goods vehicle, there may be breach of insurance policy. The owner has to pay compensation in the sum of Rs. 50,000 at interim stage for the vehicle accident, of course, it is reimbursible by the Insurer as directed by the learned Chairman of the MACT Yavatmal. No ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order. Appeal is dismissed. JUDGE sahare