1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. FIRST APPEAL No. 2028 OF 2010 Bapurao S/o Maruti Sudrik, Age 48 years, Occu. Agriculturist, R/o Kopardi, Tq. Karjat, .. APPELLANTS VERSUS Kantilal S/o Gopal Shinde, Age 41 years, Occu. Agri & Service, at present Occu. Nil, R/o Kopardi, Tq. Karjat, Dist. Ahmednagar. ...RESPONDENT ... Shri Sachin Deshmukh, Advocate for appellant Shri H.U. Dhage, Advocate for respondent CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 6th October, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : Heard. Admit. With the consent of parties this First Appeal is taken for final hearing at the stage of admission. 2. The present respondent had filed Motor Accident Claim Petition, against the present appellant on account of the accident which had taken place on 05th February, 2008. It is the case of the respondent / Ori. Claimant that the 2 appellant was driving the motor-cycle in rash and negligent manner, and because of which accident took place and the claimant sustained injuries and permanent disability. The claimant claimed compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rs. Four lakh) in the claim petition filed under Section 166, the claimant also filed an application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal allowed the application filed by the claimant under Section 140, and directed the present appellant to deposit an amount of Rs. 25,000/- towards the ‘No Fault Liability’ along with interest. The appellant has assailed the said order before this Court. 3. Shri Sachin Deshmukh, learned Counsel for the appellant contended that false and frivolous claim petition has been filed against the appellant. In fact, the appellant had helped the original claimant in taking him to hospital. The vehicle of the appellant is not involved in the accident, nor the accident has taken place at the hands of appellant. According to him, the Tribunal has not at all considered the evidence 3 on record and merely on surmises passed the impugned order. 4. Per Contra Shri Dhage, learned Counsel for the respondent / Ori. Claimant contended that a Criminal case is filed against the appellant and he had received a dash from the motor-cycle driven by the present appellant, because of which he has suffered permanent disability. The Tribunal has rightly granted the compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act. 5. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the respective parties, I have gone through the Judgment passed by the Courts below. 6. The provisions of Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, acts as a succour to the claimant. At the said stage of determination of application under Section 140, only prima facie proof is required to be seen. A complaint is lodged against the appellant. Whether really accident had taken place at the hands of the appellant and Whether he was driving the motor- 4 cycle in rash and negligent manner, all these aspects will be required to be considered, after evidence has been led by both the parties. The claimant had produced on record, the disability certificate, the FIR lodged and the crime registered against the appellant. In the light of the said fact, no error can be found in the Judgment of the Courts below, directing the appellant to deposit the amount, though the appellant has disputed the accident. 7. It is made clear that the Tribunal would not be influenced only because order U/Sec. 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal shall independently come to the conclusion regarding the involvement of the appellant in the accident alleged by the claimant. 8. In the light of the same, I do not propose to interfere in the said order. However, ends of justice would sub-serve, if the applicant is allowed to withdraw an amount of Rs. 12,500/- (Rs. Twelve thousand five hundred) deposited by the appellant. I direct the appellant to deposit 5 the remaining amount of Rs. 12,500/- (Rs. Twelve thousand five hundred) within a period of four weeks from today before the Tribunal, and the said amount of Rs. 12,500/- (Rs. Twelve thousand five hundred) shall be kept in fixed deposit. 9. The Tribunal is directed to dispose of the application under Section 166 as expeditiously as possible. The First Appeal accordingly is disposed of with aforesaid observations. 10. In view of the order passed in the present First Appeal, the execution proceedings shall stand stayed till the disposal of the application U/Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 11. In view of the disposal of the First Appeal, Civil Application NO. 13465 of 2010 does not survive, and same is disposed of accordingly. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J] SDM*2028.10FA