1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 529 OF 2008 The New India Assurance Company Ltd. ....Appellant. Versus Arunabai w/o. Jankiram Karte, R/o. Pimpala, Tq. Aundha (n) Dist. Hingoli and others ....Respondents. Shri. Ajit Kadethankar, Advocate for the appellant. Shri. P.S. Agarwal, Advocate for the respondent No. 7. CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 6th August 2009 ORAL ORDER : 1. Heard Shri. Ajit Kadethankar, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri. P. S. Agarwal, learned counsel for respondent No. 7. 2. This appeal challenges the order below Exh. 5, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hingoli on 26.9.2007 in MACP No. 272/2005. By this order, the appellant and the respondent No. 7 were directed to pay jointly and severally the amount of Rs. 2 50,000/- to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of order, failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of order till its realization. This order was passed below application filed under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the deceased Jankiram was travelling in tempo bearing No.MH-38/E-301, which is involved in the accident. As a result of the accident Jankiram died. Hence, the claim petition bearing MACP No. 272/2005, has been filed by his legal heirs, who are respondent Nos. 1 to 6, claiming total compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. The learned counsel submits that the tempo was a goods carrier and the deceased was travelling as a passenger. He relied upon the complaint dated 18.5.2005 to substantiate this pleading. The learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court and urges that the Insurance Company is not liable, in the event, there is a breach of conditions of the Insurance Policy, which according to him, in the present case, had occurred. 4. The learned Member of the Tribunal, after going through the complaint, spot panchanama, insurance premium receipts etc., had recorded a finding that the tempo was a public carrier and a premium was also paid for the labourers. The dispute involved in the petition is, whether the deceased was labourer or passenger. This being a disputed question of fact, requires evidence to be led by the parties and hence, at 3 this prima facie stage, it cannot be said that the order passed by the Tribunal suffers from any infirmity. 5. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the challenge raised in this appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed. However, neither any of the observations made in the order dated 26.9.2007 impugned in this appeal nor any of the observations made in the present order shall come in the way of the appellant while deciding the case finally. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that he has already deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000/- on 14.1.2008, Rs.26,023/- on 15.3.2008. The office is directed to remit the entire amount to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hingoli. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J. ] ssc/fa529.08