IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.697 of 2009 BABY DEVI, W/o Ravindra Kumar, Resident of Village – Dhandua, P.S.- Jandaha, District – Vaishali at Hajipur. ..... Opp. Party No. 1 (owner), Appellant. Versus SUNAINA DEVI @ SUNITA DEVI, Wife of Ram Babu Rai, Resident of Village – Govindpur Thakharaha, P.S.- Rajapakar, District– Vaishali at Hajipur (Pchhoner). ...... Claimant, Respondent ----------- For the appellant: Sri Hemendra Prasad Singh, Advocate For the respondent: Sri Dhurendra Kumar, Advocate Sri Ashok Priyadarshi, S.C. --------- 11 21.06.2011 Heard Sri Hemendra Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Dhurendra Kumar, who appears on behalf of sole respondent/claimant on M.A. 697 of 2009 as well as Interlocutory Application No. 2638 of 2010 filed for impleading National Insurance Company as proposed respondent and I.A. No. 7583 of 2009, which was filed for condoning the delay. Interlocutory Application i.e. I.A. No. 7583 of 2009 was filed for condoning the delay of seven days in filing the appeal. In view of grounds set forth in the limitation petition, delay in filing the appeal is condoned and Interlocutory Application No. 7583 of 2009 stands allowed. On Interlocutory Application No. 2638 of 2010, Sri Ashok Priyadarshi, learned counsel for National Insurance Company/proposed 2 respondent, has argued that since the appeal was filed at belated stage, the prayer for impleading National Insurance Company as respondent is liable to be rejected. I have heard Sri Hemendra Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the appellant on merit of the case. The present appeal has been filed against an order which was passed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, whereby, the learned Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Vaishali at Hajipur (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') had allowed the petition of the claimant for payment of interim compensation of Rs. 50,000/- The appellant is the owner of the offending vehicle. Learned counsel for the appellant submits, that the learned Tribunal has incorrectly decided that the vehicle in question, at the time of accident, was being driven by the son of the owner of the vehicle/appellant. It was submitted that during investigation it has come that the vehicle in question was being driven by the driver who was 3 having proper licence. It was further submitted that before passing the interim order the learned Tribunal was required to conduct an enquiry which has not been done, and accordingly, the order in question, is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the respondent/claimant submits that F.I.R. itself indicates that at the time of accident the vehicle in question was being driven by the son of the owner/appellant, who was not authorised to drive the commercial vehicle. At the time of hearing the petition filed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act learned Tribunal was not required to ask the claimant to establish with all evidence that accident had occurred due to gross negligence and fault of the owner, but only on prima facie satisfaction the Tribunal was required to pass order. It was further submitted that the claimant has also filed Claim Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act vide Claim Case No. 130 of 2010 which is still pending. Accordingly, it was argued that the interim compensation amount can be adjusted at the time of final adjudication of the claim case. 4 Accordingly, it was submitted that the appellant/owner would be at liberty to participate in the main claim petition and may take any stand in the said claim petition. In the present case, on 2.12.2007, son of the claimant died in an accident by the commercial vehicle of the appellant. After the accident, an F.I.R. was lodged, and in the F.I.R. the informant made statement, that vehicle in question at the time of accident was being driven by the son of the owner of the vehicle, whereas, since it was a commercial vehicle it was required to be driven by a driver having licence for driving the vehicle. Accordingly, a petition under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act was initially filed for interim compensation and the learned Tribunal after hearing the parties and prima facie satisfied that owner himself was at fault has passed the impugned order and directed the owner of the vehicle/appellant to pay interim compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. Subsequently, as submitted by learned counsel for respondent, a Claim Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act has been filed vide Claim Case No. 130 of 2010 and the same is still pending. 5 The court is of the opinion that appellant can lead evidence to dispute the claim of the sole respondent in the claim case filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, and at this stage, it is not appropriate to interfere with the impugned order which has been passed for immediately compensating the family of the deceased. After going through the impugned order the court is of the opinion that there is no error, and accordingly, the order impugned requires no interference. The appeal stands rejected. Praful (Rakesh Kumar, J.)