IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.63 of 2009 DIV.MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Versus REKHA DEVI & ANR ----------- For the Appellant : Mr. Durgesh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent : None ORDER 08. 06.07.2010. 1. Heard the learned counsel, Sri Durgesh Kumar Singh on behalf of the appellant-Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Under Order 41 Rule 11 C.P.C. 2. The appellant has filed this Appeal against the Order dated 21.04.2008 passed by the learned 9th Addl. District Judge-cum-Addl. Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Muzaffarpur in claim Case No.287 of 2004 whereby the claim Tribunal allowed the application under Section 140 of the M.V. Act and directed the appellant to pay Rs.50,000/-. 3. According to the claim case which was filed by the widow of the deceased on 12.10.2004 when her husband Surendra Singh was returning in his bye-cycle bus No.BR.-06P-8651 which was being driven rashly and negligently dashed Surendra Singh as a result of which he died on the spot. The bus fled away running over him and smashing his bicycle. The people of the locality assembled there and informed the police. F.I.R. was lodged being Pipra P.S. Case No.117 of 2004. 4. A separate application under Section 140 M.V. Act was filed and it was alleged that O.P. No.1 is the owner and the appellant company is the insurer. 5. The owner and the appellant filed written statement. It appears from the impugned order that the insurance of the bus by the appellant is 2 admitted. The other document such as F.I.R., post-mortem report and charge-sheet were filed in the Court below. The insurance policy was also filed. After perusal of those documents, the impugned order was passed. 6. The learned counsel, Sri Durgesh Kumar Singh, raised only one question that in the post-mortem report, the age of the deceased has been mentioned as 45 years whereas in the claim application, the age has been mentioned as 29 years. According to the learned counsel, the husband of the claimant has not died in the alleged because the age of the deceased person who died in the accident was aged about 45 years as mentioned in the post-mortem report. According to the learned counsel, this point was raised before the Court below but it was not decided while passing order under Section 140 M.V. Act. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that no such point was raised in the Court below by the appellant. Moreover, it is a matter of evidence as to whether the age of the deceased was 29 years or 45 years or as to whether the post-mortem was conducted on the dead body of husband of the claimant and the said post-mortem report has been filed or the other post-mortem report has been filed. 8. In a decision reported in 2001 (4) P.L.J.R. 557 (The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Faida Hussain), the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court has held that claim under Section 140 is summary and no application is to be rejected on any technical ground nor detailed procedure meant for disposal of claim under Section 166 is required to be followed. As stated above for ascertaining the above facts, evidences are necessary. On the basis of only the age mentioned in the post-mortem report, it cannot 3 be said that the claim application is fictitious. It cannot also be said that the husband of the claimant did not die in the said accident. At best, it may be said that there is much difference in the age mentioned in the post-mortem report and mentioned in the claim application. However, after trial, this matter can be decided on the basis of evidence. 9. From the post-mortem report annexed as Annexure in this Misc. Appeal, it does not appear that the age has been mentioned by the doctor. Certificate has been given that those entries are made as par the chowkidar. It is also not clear as to whether only one page of post-mortem report which is annexed with this Appeal was only filed before the Tribunal. 10. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case at this stage, no finding can be given regarding the question raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. I, therefore, find no force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. However, if this is the fact that the post-mortem report filed by the claimant mentions the age of the deceased as 45 years then the learned Tribunal should be satisfied first about the discrepancies /differences in the age mentioned in post-mortem report and claim application and then after proper verification and being satisfied shall pay the interim compensation to the claimant. 11. In the result with these observations, this Misc. Appeal is dismissed. Statutory amount deposited may be transmitted to the Court below which may be adjusted in interim compensation. Sanjeev/- (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)