HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISQARH AT BILASPUR Misc. Appeal (C} No. 717 of 20©9 Respondents Claimants Appellant : Branch Manage, The Unitect Indla Non-applicant Insurance Company Limited, Branch No.3 Office Patel Nagar, Murcftiava, Rinukote, District Sonbhadra (Uttar Pradesh). Versus 1. Smt. Blrajo bai, wife of late Devdhani, aged about 31 years, occupation Housewife. 2. Kumari Shanti, Dai^hter ol late Devdhsmi, aged about 10 years, occupation student. 3. Mohan Kumar, son of late Devdhani, aged about 8 years, occupation student. 4. Kumari Rajkumari, daughter of late Devdhani, aged about 6 yegys occupation nil 5. Kumari Anlta, daughter of tete Devdhani, aged about 4 years, occupation nil 6. Kumari Rampati, daught^r of tete Devdhara, aged about 2 years, occupation nil. 7. Smt. Jirhuljya, wife of late Ram Singh, aged about 70 years, occupation iiil. Respondnet No. 2 to 6 thorugh their natural guardian respondent No. 1 mother Smt Birajo Bai, All resident of village Kemta, Police Station Dhurki, Tahsil Gadhwa, Distrctt Gadhwa (Jharkhand) at present VSUage Piparpan (Dhuwadah), Police Station Sanawal, Tahsil Pal, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh). 8. Rajendra Prasad, son of Chhannu Ram, ag^d about years, occupation Jeep Driver, resident ofWardNo. 1, Near Kalimandir, Duddhi, District Sonbhadra (Uttar Prad^h). 9. Satyanara^in, sw of Kanhai Through Shri Rajendra Prasad, son of Chhannu Ram, Ward No. 1, Near Kalimandir, Duddhi, District Sonbhadra (Uttar Pradesh). APPEAL UNDER SECTION 1730FTHE MOTGR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 Non-applicant Nai Non-apDlicant No.2. (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.l Present : Shri H8 Agrawal, ^". Advocale with Smt. Meera ^iiswsd, Advocate for appellant. Shri TR Chandrakar, Advoeate for respondent No. t to 7. Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Advocatefor pespondent No. 8 & 9. ORALORDER (Passed on 22nd day ofApril, 2010) 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the award dated 05.12.2008. passed by ftie Ist Addftional Motor AccideNts Claims Tribunal (FTC), Ramanujganj, District Surguja (fcr short 'the Tribunal') in claim case No. 11/20@8, whereby and whereunder the application preferred tsy the respondent No. 1 to 7 under Section 140 of MV Act has been atlowed and amount of Rs. 50,000/- has been awarded fastening the liability also upon the appellant/insurance company for ite payment, the instant appeal has been preferred. The facts in brief are as yndw: 2. 3. On 13.03.2008, Devdhani (since dec^sedl) met with an accident with Jeep bearing registraflon No. UP-54B^961 and succumbed to the Snjuries sustained in thesaid accident. The respondent No. 1 to 7 preferred a daim petttion uroler Section 166 of MV Act daiming compensation for the death of deceased in the said accident. AIso filed an applicatton under Sectton 140 of the MV Act claiming Rs. 50,00©/-as no fault compensation. Shri Agrawal, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the Tribunal without consldering the defence taken/objection raised by the appellant/insurance ^^s^^^ 1^ 'l. ~iii / '\ m^^: ^ -—^! ,<7 8. company has passed the order impugned. Me would further contend that the Tribunal ought to have conducted summary enquiry into the matter before passing the order Impugned. The Tribunal has erred in passing the said awa^J and the same deserves to be set aside. On the other hand Shri Paranjpe and Shrt Chandrsrftar, teanned counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that the Tribunal has passed the said award taking into consideration every aspects of the matter inasmuch as the amourt awareled has been directed to be deposited in the fixed deposit tHI decision of the case from whteh the intention of the Tribunal is apparent not to pay the amount to tte claimants till dectsion of the main petition and if it is found that the appenanft/insurance company is not liable then the amount may be reftinded to tt and therefore, the Tribunal has not committed any itte^ilfty in passing the said award and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. I have heard the counsel appearing for the partjes, perused the order impugned and material placed before thls court. True 'rt is the award passed by the Trfeund under Sectton 140 is an award which is appellable and befwe passing the award (he Tribunal ought to have considered the ob|ection8 raised byth® appellant/insurance company. However, a bare perusal of award would reveal that the Tribunal has not dlrected to disbursed the amount to the claimants and hs®direct^ to deposit the amount in the fixed deposit till decislon of the main petition filed under Section 166 of the ^/IV Act. From thls, the -/ FT ..- r- \ .^ intention of the Tribunal is clear that in case if tt is found the insurance company Ss not liable then the amount may be refunded to it. 9. In view of above, 1 do not flnd ar^ substarx^e in the appeal. The appeal being devoid of substance is liabte to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. However, it is directed that the Tribunal shall dedde the claim petition as eariy as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of thte order. No order astocosts. Sd/- i N.K. Agrawal Judge Sahu