Sinaie Bench : Hon'bie Shri OilipRaosaneoDeshmykh^i, Misceiianeous AiiDeai (C.l No.1280 of 2007 eU (ApDiicantsJ Ciajmantsl Non-ARRJI 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. Jatanram, son of Rs Kumhar, aged about 28 years, Caste- Kumhar, Driver, R/o Kaskeia, P.S. Pratappur, Poiice Chowki Bhatgaon, Tahsil Surajpur, District Sarguja 2. Chiranil Lai Agarwal. son of Shri Hukum Chand Agarwai, aged about 50 years, Caste-Agarwal, R/o Viiiage Salka, Occupation-Owner of tractor & Gross Keeper, Viiiage Bhatgaon, P.S. Pratappur, Dsstt. Sarguja 3. Ganesh Kumar Agarwal, son of Shri Hukum Chand Agarwal, aged about 35 years, R/o Village Salka-Adhina, Poiice Chowki Bhatgaon, P.S. Pratappur, Distt. Sarguja Smt. Phool Bai, widow of Late Bholaram, aged about 28 years Ku. Basanti, daughter of Late Bholaram, aged about 10years Samadhar, son of Late Bholaram, aged about 08 years Ku. Shanti, daughter of Late Bhoiaram, aged about 06 years Ku. Sita, daughter of Laie Bhotaram, aged about 04 years Smt. Phoolkunwar, widow of Late Hirohit, aged about 65 years No.2 to 5 are minors through their natural guardian mother Smt. Phooi iai, wife of Late Bhoiaram A!l are Harijans by caste, resident of Viiiage Dugga, P.S. Pratappur, Tahsil Surajp'ur, District Sarguja Ramkeshwar, son of Late Hirohit, aged about 40 years, Harijan, Occupation, working in SECL ihatgaon Coltiery, resident of Viiiage Dugga, P.S. Pratappur, Tahsil.. Surajpur, District Sarguja ^^s. f.-*"^ Q. B Kte-'SS.'*';. : ^at®^";'~^ I 2- ~aa>. 8. The Orienta! Insurance Company Ud. through the Branch Manager, Branch Office, Ambikapur, District Sarguja iscsltaneoys ApBealjjnder Section_173_oftheJViotor Vehicies ^ ^ oo< *f0; Present : Ms. SharmiiaSinghai, counseiforthe appei'ants. Heard on admission. (2) The appeltants are aggrieved by an order dated 04-08-2007 passed by the llnd Additional Motor Accldents CSaims Tribunal, F.T.C., Surajpur, Surguja (hereinafter referred to as 'the MACT') in Ciaim Case No.113/06, whereby on an appiication undsr Sectlon 140 of the Motor Vehlctes Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') filed by ths clalmants on 24-01-2005, the MACT awarded interim compensatlon of Rs.50,000/- against the appeliants. (3) . Sharmila Singhai, learned counsel for the appeiiants did not dispute the following: (A) that death of Bholaram, who was a pllSion rider on Rajdoot Motor Cycie No.CG15ZJ-6042 was caused 24-12-2004 due to collision v/ith the Tractor-T NO.MP27B-1773 and 7237. \Qj that appellant No.1 Jatanram was the driver of the tractor-troiley, appellant No.2 Chiranji Lai Agarwai was the owner of the tractor and appeilant No.3 Ganesh Kumar Agarwa! was the owner of the troiley attached to the said tractor. fr^^. s s ^ (C) that the tractor and trolley were not insured on the date of accident, and (D) that it is a!so launched prosecution under SecSion 304-A causing death by rash in dispute that the police had lainst appeliant No.1, Jatanram of the Indian Penai Code for negligent driving. (4) Mlss Sharmila Singhai, learned counsel for the appellants has assaited the impugned order on the ground that the MACT failed to take Into consideration that the appsiianfs had in their written statement averred that the tractor-trolley were stationary and that the accident had occurred due to rash and negtigent driving by respondent No.7, Ramkeshwar. (5) I have considered {he submsssion made by iearned counse! for the appellants and ateo perused the annexures with the memorandum of appea!. The claimants had specificaliy averred not only in the appiication under Section 166 of the Act but a!so in their appiication under Section 140 of the Act that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor by appellant No.1 Jatanram. This was further corroborated by the copy of the First Information Report, wherein it was mentioned that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the tractor. !t is also not in dispute that the police had iaunched prosecution against appellant No.1 Jatanram under Section 304-A of the Indian Penai Code for causing death by rash and negiigent driving. No report was iodged by the appellants that the motor cycle being driven In rash or negligent manner had collided with the stationar/ tractor- fUK T-s^. "^ f^t. f ""^. '^ ^ '^^.<^-?Ba.^ '^ V^SiSKQ g ^ '^•yt^ ^ trolley. Whiie decjding an appiicafion under Section 140 of the Act for awarding interim compensation on the princjple of no fau!} liabiiity in a case of the present nature, the MACT was required to prima facie make an assessment on the basis of the materia! on record on the foiiowing points: (A) Whether death was caused due to collision with the tractor-troiley? (B) Whether the vehicle was owned by the non- (C) Whether the tractor-troliey was appellantNo.1? iven &y (6) !n the facts and circumstances mentioned above, in my cons'dered oplnion, the MACT was whoily justified in awarding interim compensation of Rs.50,000/- against the appellants. This appeai, being devoid of merit, is, therefore, dismissed at admission stage. (7) Consequentiy, l.A.No.1 for grant of stay a!so stands dismissed. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Sopa!