1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.944 OF 1994 Narendra Shivram Chikodi ...Appellant vs. 1 Smt.Bharati Ashok Chavan 2 Master Rahul Ashok Chavan 3 Kum.Neeta Ashok Chavan 4 Master Deepak Ashok Chavan 5 Smt.Akkatai Yashwant Chavan ...Respondents Mr.A.M.Kulkarni for the Appellant None for the respondents CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : FEBRUARY 10, 2010 JUDGMENT : 1 Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. By this appeal the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident has taken an exception to the Award under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988. The 1 st to 5 th respondents are the claimants and the 6 th respondent is not a party to the claim petition. 2 The case made out in the claim petition is that one Ashok Yashwant Chavan was proceeding by M-80 Moped to see the 1 st respondent who had delivered a child. The allegation is that the appellant who was driving the Bajaj scooter came in a very fast speed and gave a dash to M-80 moped which was being plied by the deceased Ashok. The claim petition was contested by the appellant by contending that the 1 st respondent was not legally wedded wife of deceased Ashok. His first wife Chhaya was alive. The second contention raised was that the insurer of the scooter was not impleaded as a party. The Appellant denied that a dash was given by his scooter to 2 the moped plied by the deceased. A contention was raised that the deceased himself was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. It is alleged that to avoid the moped plied by the deceased he tried to take his scooter towards left side and therefore, scooter slipped and there is no involvement of the vehicle in the accident. 3 The Tribunal by the impugned Award dated 9 th December 1993 directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- together with interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum. 4 The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the vehicle i.e the scooter owned by the appellant is not at all involved in the accident. He pointed out that in fact an offence was registered against the deceased. He submitted that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Moped on the part of the deceased. He pointed out that the order passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act shows that the 1 st respondent is not legally wedded wife of the deceased. The said order disclosed that one Chhaya was the legally wedded wife of the deceased. He submitted that in any event, as the scooter was duly insured, the liability was of the insurer of the scooter and the insurer has not been made a party. 5 I have considered the submissions. The scope of adjudication in a claim petition under section 140 of the said Act of 1988 is a very limited. The issue regarding negligence is not at all relevant while deciding the claim petition in view of sub section 4 of section 140 of the said Act of 1988. The documents produced on record show the involvement of the vehicle of the appellant in 3 the accident. The said documents show that there was collision between the Moped plied by the deceased and scooter of the appellant. Therefore, it is not possible to find fault with the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the vehicle of the appellant was involved in the accident. There is no dispute that the deceased Ashok lost his life. As far as the second contention as regards non joinder of the insurer is concerned, the impugned order does not become bad only on the ground of non joinder of insurer of the vehicle. The appellant could have pointed out that his own insurer is required to be impleaded as a party. Apart from this, the appellant can always exercise his rights under policy of insurance if the same was valid and was in force. As far as third contention is concerned, there is no dispute that the 2 nd to 5 th respondents are respectively the children and the mother of the deceased. The 1 st respondent claimed to be a dependent of the deceased. It is obvious that the claim is made by the claimants for themselves and also on behalf of others who are entitled to claim compensation on account of death of the deceased. If one Chhaya is legally wedded wife of the deceased, she can always claim her share in the compensation amount from the respondents. 6 Considering object and the scope of a remedy under section 140 of the said Act, no interference is called for with the impugned Award. Accordingly, Appeal is dismissed. If the main claim petition under section 166 of the said Act of 1988 is still pending, it is made clear that all contentions of the appellant in the said claim petition are expressly kept open and notwithstanding the findings recorded in the impugned Award which are confirmed by this Court, it will be open for the appellant to raise all contentions including the 4 contention that his vehicle was not involved in the accident. 7 The amount deposited by the appellant in this Court with interest, if any, accrued thereon shall be transferred to the Tribunal. The Tribunal will pass an appropriate order regarding disbursement/withdrawal of the amount. JUDGE