1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CIVIL APPLICATION No.2469 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.89 OF 2011 Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., through its Branch Manager, Nagpur Versus Prapbhakar Suryabhanji Kurhade and others _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ Shri A.J. Pophaly, Advocate for the appellant, Shri M.R. Joharapurkar, Advocate for respondent No.1. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : 14.02.2011. By the above Civil Application, the applicant seeks interim stay to the judgment and award dated 12-1-2010 passed by the M.A.C.T. in Claim Petition No.192/2009. Pursuant to the order dated 04-10-2010 passed in the above Civil Application, the applicant/ appellant has deposited only a sum of Rs.50,000/- . The balance of the decretal amount has not been deposited. The ad interim releif granted was on the specific condition that the entire decretal amount would be deposited by the applicant/appellant in this Court by the returnable date. Hence, though the Civil Application is allowed and the ad interim relief granted on 04-10-2010 is confirmed, the 2 same would operate only if the applicant/appellant deposits the balance of the decretal amount in this Court within a period of four weeks from date. In default, the stay would stand vacated and the claimants would then be entitled to proceed against the applicant/appellant in accordance with law to execute the award to the extent that it has not been complied with. Civil Application is accordingly disposed of. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.319/2011. By the above Civil Application, the applicants seek to withdraw the amount of Rs.50,000/-, which can be attributed to the no fault liability under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The applicants, who are the original claimants, are the heirs of deceased Nirmalabai, who was involved in the fatal accident on 20th March, 2008. 2. The above Civil Application is opposed on behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company on the ground that the insurance cover was only restricted to third parties. The learned Counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company would contend that the liability, therefore, would be that of the owner of the vehicle. 3. On behalf of the applicants/claimants Mr. Joharapurkar, learned Counsel drew my attention to a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2004 ACJ 737 in the matter of Ajay Ramesh Bhoir .vs. Avinash Shantaram Jadial Shiravane and another. In the said 3 judgment, it has been held that merely because the owner has not paid any extra premium to cover the pillion rider, would not absolve the Insurance Company of the no fault liability. The Division Bench of this Court held that the provisions of the new Motor Vehicles Act are wider than the old Act and would cover a situation wherein a pillion rider was involved. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the third party risk was covered and therefore, the ratio of the said judgment would apply in the facts of the present case. 4. The learned Counsel also drew my attention to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2010 SC 2907 in the matter of Eshwarappa @ Maheshwarappa and another .vs. C.S. Gurushanthappa and another, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has enunciated the purport and intent of Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Hon’ble Apex Court has ruled that sub-section (5) of Section 140 makes it clear that the liability of the owner to pay compensation under Section 140 is independent of his liability under any law for the time being in force and all that is required to attract the liability under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act is an accident arising out of the motor vehicle leading to the death or permanent disablement of any person. In the instant case, the applicants/claimants are the heirs of deceased Nirmalabai and the vehicle is undisputedly covered by third party insurance risk. In my view, therefore, the Civil Application for withdrawal of the amount for no fault liability i.e. Rs.50,000/- is required to be allowed and is 4 accordingly allowed. Civil Application is accordingly disposed of. The applicants/claimants would be allowed to withdraw the said amount on furnishing the solvent security to the satisfaction of the learned Registrar of this Court. First Appeal No.89/2011. Admit. Hearing expedited. JUDGE pma