IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No.261 of 2007 alongwith CMPMO Nos.308, 309, 311, 312 & 313 of 2007. Date of decision: 17.6.2008 United India Insurance Company (in all cases) …..Petitioner -Versus- 1.Jagraj Singh and others in CMPMO No.261 of 2007 2.Surjit Singh and another in CMPMO No.308 of 2007 3.Gurdev Singh and others in CMPMO No.309 of 2007 4.Naib Singh and others in CMPMO No.311 of 2007 5.Joginder Singh and others in CMPMO No.312 of 2007 6.Darshan Singh and others in CMPMO No.313 of 2007 ….Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes For the Petitioner: Mr.Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate. For the respondent-1: Mr.Neeraj Gupta, Advocate Deepak Gupta, J.(oral) This judgment shall dispose of the aforesaid six petitions as identical questions of law and fact are involved in all the cases. Briefly stated the facts necessary for decision of the case are that the victims in all the six cases were travelling as passengers in Tractor Trolley No.PB-05B-3175. They were going from their village Sadhuwala to Pir Nigaha temple on 30.3.1998. At about 8.30 a.m. when the tractor trolley reached their village Palkwah it turned turtle resulting in the death of the six victims. The heirs of the victims filed six separate claim petitions for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The claim petitions were only contested by the Insurance Company and the owner-cum-driver of the tractor Jagraj Singh remained ex-parte. The Insurance Company took up the plea that it was not liable to pay the compensation since the deceased 2 were travelling as unauthorized/illegal passengers in the tractor in question. The learned Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of Jagraj Singh, owner-cum-driver of the tractor and awarded compensation in accordance with the principles laid down by the Apex Court in a number of judgments. He however held that the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the compensation in view of the pronouncement of the Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Asha Rani and others, AIR 2003 SC 607 as well as Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Devireddy Konda Reddi and others, 2003 SCC 1009. It would be pertinent to mention that prior to the passing of the awards the learned Tribunal had allowed the applications filed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act and had passed awards in all the cases on 16.11.2001 under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act directing the Insurance Company to pay Rs.50,000/- as interim compensation. Relevant portion of the award reads as follows: “Hence, I allow the present application awarding a compensation of Rs.50,000/- in favour of the petitioners/claimants on account of “no fault liability” which amount shall be payable by M/s.United India Insurance Company Ltd.-respondent No.2 and I direct such company to deposit the amount of Rs.50,000/- within 45 days from today failing which it shall be recoverable alongwith interest @ 9% per annum. File, after due completion, be consigned to the record room.” The claimants filed six appeals before this Court being FAO Nos.485, 486, 487, 488, 489 and 500 of 2003 praying for enhancement of compensation and also praying that the Insurance Company be made liable to deposit the compensation. This Court held that no person other than driver could travel in a tractor and therefore rejected the appeals and also held that the Insurance Company could not be made liable to satisfy the award as that would be against the law laid down by the Apex Court. After the appeals 3 were disposed of by this Court the Insurance Company filed applications for refund/restitution of the amount deposited by it pursuant to the awards dated 16.11.2001 passed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. These applications were rejected by the learned MACT on the ground that in the final award there is nothing to indicate that the Insurance Company was held entitled to recover the amount deposited by it by way of interim compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Aggrieved against the said order these petitions have been filed. The law is well settled that an award passed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act is an award for all intents and purposes and an appeal against the said award lies to this Court under Section 173 of the Act. The awards under Section 140 of the Act were passed on 16.11.2001. These awards were not challenged by the Insurance Company. No doubt, the Insurance Company while depositing the amount before the Tribunal stated in the application that it reserves its right to recover the amount. However, this was a unilateral declaration on the part of the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company did not file any application before the Tribunal praying that the order dated 16.11.2001 be modified to the extent that in case finally the matter is decided in favour of the Insurance Company it would have the right to recover the amount deposited by it from the owner. No appeal was filed against the said awards. Even when the matter was argued in this Court in the appeals filed by the claimants, no such plea was raised. The Apex court in Yallwwa (Smt) and others vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and another, (2007)6 SCC 657, has clearly held that an order passed under Section 140 of the Act is an award appealable under Section 173 of the Act as it amounts to an 4 award under Section 168 of the Act. Reference in this behalf may be made to paras 13 and 29 of the judgment which read as follows: “13.It may be noted that Chapter X of the Act provides for no forum for enforcement of the right under Section 140. The only forum available is in Chapter XII. The right under Section 140 can only be enforced under Section 168 as an award. An appeal, therefore, lies under Section 173 against such an award seeking to enforce the right under Section 140. xxxxxxxxx 29.In our considered opinion, the said decision does not state the law correctly. In our opinion, an order of the Tribunal awarding compensation under Section 140 of the Act is appealable under Section 173 as it amounts to an award under Section 173.” The same proposition of law has been enunciated by the Apex Court in Manjuri Bera (Smt.) vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and another, (2007) 10 SCC 643. Since the award passed under Section 140 of the Act has attained finality and was not challenged by the Insurance Company it cannot be permitted to argue in miscellaneous applications that it is entitled to refund of the amount deposited by it. Therefore, there is no merit in the petitions which are rejected. Sh.Sanjeev Kuthiala, has prayed that this law has only been laid down recently and therefore the Insurance Company may be granted permission to file appeals against the awards passed under Section 140 of the Act. It is not for this Court to grant permission to the Insurance Company to file appeals. It may or may not file appeals. If appeals are filed the Court concerned may consider whether to condone the delay in filing the appeals and whether to entertain the appeals or not. June 17, 2008. ( Deepak Gupta ), PV Judge