IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.365 of 2010 ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. THROUGH THE REGIONAL MANAGER (LEGAL DEPTT.), REGIONAL OFFICE, PIRMOHANI, KADAMKUAN, PATNA. -----(OPP. PARTY NO. 2/APPELLANT) Versus 1. BIJANTI DEVI , WIFE OF LATE RAJESH RAM 2. MAHESH KUMAR, SON OF LATE RAJESH RAM 3. BINDA KUMARI (MINOR), DAUGHTER OF LATE RAJESH RAM 4. RAJA KUMAR (MINOR), SON OF LATE RAJESH RAM 5. CHHOTU KUMAR (MINOR), SON OF LATE RAJESH RAM 6. PINKI KUMARI (MINOR), DAUGHTER OF LATE RAJESH RAM ALL MINORS ARE UNDER THE LEGAL GUARDIANSHIP OF THEIR MOTHER BIJANTI DEVI. ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE BELAUNJA, P.O. DARANAGAR, P.S. NAUHATTA, DISTT. ROHTAS. -----(CLAIMANTS)/RESPONDENTS 7. SANJEEV KUMAR, SON OF RAMESHWAR PRASAD, RESIDENT OF RAM NAGAR, GUMLA (JHARKHAND), AT PRESENT RESIDING AT VILLAGE TUMBA, P.O. RAMDIHARA, P.S. & DISTT. ROHTAS (OWNER OF THE TRUCK No. JH-01/U-7850 -----------(O.P. NO. 1)/RESPONDENT 4. 25.1.2011 Heard the parties. The appellant is aggrieved with the order dated 13.10.2009 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtas, Sasaram, in Claim Case No. 142 of 2008 by which the respondents No. 1 to 6 who are the legal heirs of one Rajesh Baitha, lost his life. The appellant submits that the Claimants were not entitled to any interim compensation since the deceased was not a bona fide authorized passenger since it was not a passenger carrying vehicle but a goods carrier. He further submits that while granting interim compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the same procedure should be followed by the Claims Tribunal as while granting final compensation under Section 166 of 2 the Motor Vehicles Act. He further submits that the Insurance Company does not refute the claim of the Claimants for grant of compensation but contend that it is the owner who should compensate the claimant and not the Insurance Company. For this reason, he has relied upon a decision cited in 2007 (7) Supreme Court Cases, page 56 and 2008(1) PLJR, page 127 Supreme Court. However, on going through the decision cited on behalf of the appellant, I do not think that they are applicable in the present case. Since admittedly, the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company and the death had occurred on account of an accident which had happened while the deceased was travelling in a vehicle which had been insured with the appellant company. Moreover, since the present order only covers interim compensation which is an attempt to meet the immediate exigencies of the deceased family and the issue as to whether it was the appellant or the owner who was liable for compensating the claimant is still open, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. The application is dismissed. The statutory amount deposited before this Court may be transmitted to the court below immediately for disbursement to the Claimants if it has not been done. S.Ali ( Anjana Prakash, J.)