1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.1818 OF 2008 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1819 OF 2008 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1820 OF 2008 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1822 OF 2008 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1823 OF 2008 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1824 OF 2008 _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office } Memoranda of Coram, } Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's } orders or directions } and Registrar's orders } ___________________________}___________________________________ Mr.A. B. Gatne, Advocate for appellant. Mr.P. B. Kakhunde, Advocate for respondent no.2. Mr.Avinash Kshirsagar, Advocate for respondent no.1. ........ [CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. ] DATE : 21st January, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard Mr.Gatne for the appellant- insurance company, Mr.Kakhunde for respondent No.2 and Mr.Kshirsagar for respondent no.1. The respondent no.3 2 served absent. 2. Though the litigation has checkered history of earlier rounds, it need not be pondered upon at this stage. 3. The matter can be resolved considering the details of accident. The tractor insured with the appellant was attached with trolley being Trolley No.MH-25/B/3360, which apparently was not insured with the present appellant- United India Insurance Company. It is canvased, 14 passengers who were traveling were part of the passengers in the trolley and the accident having taken place, according to the appellant-insurance company will not make it liable to answer the claim under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 4. Though the learned Member of the Tribunal found that the motor vehicle was involved in the accident and also recorded the claimants suffered permanent disability, however prima facie it is apparent that the tractor though was insured, trolley referred above was not insured. Consequently no directions prima facie could have been 3 issued for remitting the amount of no fault liability. 5. During course of submission Mr.Gatne informs the insurance company of the trolley is consequently included in the Petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act. 6. Considering the legal position and keeping the issue open as to the nature of travel by 14 passengers in the trolley to be legal, the fact remains that the appellant- insurance company prima facie will not be liable to answer the amount under no fault liability till it is finally decided to fasten the liability against the insurance company. Needless to add the appellant-insurance company is at liberty to address all the issues before the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Latur. Hence the order :- a) The appeals are partly allowed. b) The order directing remittance of amount in terms of Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the appellant- insurance company is set aside. c) If the learned Member, Motor 4 Accident Claims Tribunal on appreciation of evidence in a petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act comes to the conclusion about the liability of appellant- insurance company, in that event the learned Judge will also incorporate stipulation about the order in terms of Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. d) If the learned Member ultimately observes and found that the appellant- insurance company is not liable to answer the claim in terms of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the amount so deposited by the appellant-insurance company in terms of order under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act shall be reimbursed by the other insurance company, for which necessary directions are bound to be passed by the Member, dealing with the matter. No costs. [ K.U.CHANDIWAL ] JUDGE gas/fa1818.08