1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. FIRST APPEAL No. 2130 OF 2009 United India Assurance Company Ltd. .. APPELLANT VERSUS Gayabai W/o Vishnu Ghait & others ...RESPONDENTS ... Shri S.G. Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for the appellants Shri S.S. Kazi, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 6 CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 20th October, 2010. PER COURT : This court vide order dated 22nd June, 2009 had put the parties to the notice that matter would be finally heard at the stage of admission. 2. The present appellant is the Insurance Company. The present respondent Nos. 1 to 6 had filed claim petition under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, on account of death of Vishnu, who was the husband of claimant No. 1, 2 the father of claimants Nos. 2 to 4 and son of claimant Nos. 5 & 6, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act. The claimants had also filed application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal vide order dated 29th June, 2009 allowed the said application directing the present appellant and the respondent No. 7 jointly and severally to pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand) to the claimants as a ‘No Fault Liability’ amount. The Insurance Company assailed the same before the Court. 3. I have heard learned Counsels for the respective parties. Shri Chapalgaonkar, learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the deceased was traveling on the head of tractor which is not permissible and in view that the insurer cannot be made liable. 4. Per contra, Shri S.S. Kazi, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 6 submitted that the Tribunal has considered prima facie case. At the time of order under Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, a detailed inquiry is not contemplated. Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act 3 is a part of beneficial legislation. It is meant to provide succor to the claimants. According to him, the claimants may be allowed to withdraw the said amount. 4. Whether the deceased was seating on the head of tractor or not, could be decided only after evidence is led. Whether the same would tantamount to breach of policy could also be considered at that stage. As the application under Section 166 is pending since 2006, instead of deciding the present appeal on merits, it would be appropriate to direct the Tribunal to decide the application under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, within a period of six months from today. As I am not considering the matter on merits, I direct that the amount which is deposited by the Insurance Company, pursuant to the orders passed under Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, be transmitted to the Tribunal, same be kept in fixed deposit. The Tribunal shall decide the proceedings U/Sec. 166 of Motor Vehicles Act within a period of six months from today. The payment of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty 4 thousand) shall depend upon the Award passed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J] SDM*2130.10 FA