1 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL NO.39/1997. National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Jareena and Ors. Date : 19th April 2007. HON'BLE MR. P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. HON'BLE MR. DINESH MAHESHWARI,J. Mr. R.K.Mehta, for the appellant Mr. A.K.Khatri, for the respondents. ... This intra-court appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 04.09.1996 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.506/1995. In a claim application made under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') the claimants moved for interim award for no fault liability under Section 140 of the Act; and the Tribunal, by its order dated 08.03.1995 proceeded to allow the same. The order so passed by the learned Tribunal was challenged before the learned Single Judge of this Court essentially on the ground that the deceased was the owner of the vehicle involved in accident and was himself driving the vehicle and the accident was brought about for his own negligence, therefore, no award of compensation under Section 140 of the Act could have been made against the insurer. However, the learned Single Judge negatived such contention on the ground that the provisions of Section 140 of the Act have been enacted for the purpose of 2 providing succor and immediate relief to the claimants without ascertaining or adjudicating the question of fault. It has been brought to our notice during the course of hearing of this appeal that the claim application under Section 166 of the Act was ultimately dismissed by the Tribunal by its award dated 31.08.2005 with the finding that Section 147 of the Act does not require coverage of risk in relation to the owner himself. Learned counsel Mr. A.K. Khatri, appearing for the claimants – respondents in all fairness conceded that in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhanraj Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and anr.: 2005 ACJ 1; and then, in view of dismissal of claim application of the claimants, he cannot justify the impugned award made by the Tribunal and affirmed by the learned Single Judge under no fault liablity. However, the learned counsel submitted that the accident in question occurred as back as on 17.08.1994 and meagre amount of Rs.50,000/- has been received by the claimants under the award impugned, though matter related to death of bread-earner of the family; and therefore, urged that the amount received by the claimants be not permitted to be recovered particularly when the same was awarded under no fault liability. Mr. R.K. Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant–insurer, in equal fairness, though expressing his 3 reservation about the proposition stated by the learned counsel Mr. Khatri, submitted that the appellant–Insurance Company would not stand on ceremonies and would not seek recovery of amount from the claimants, but urged that the order impugned as made in this case, on principle cannot be sustained. In view of fair stand taken by the learned counsel for both the parties, we are of the opinion that interest of justice shall be served if we make it clear that though we are not approving the order passed against the appellant-insurer in this case, but the matter shall stand closed inasmuch as the appellant shall not seek recovery of the amount already paid to the claimants. Of course, we clarify that such proposition would not be treated to be of any precedent. Subject to observations and clarification above, for the purpose of record, this appeal stands allowed and the impugned order dated 04.09.1996 passed by the learned Single Judge and interim award dated 08.03.1995 made by the Tribunal are set aside. No costs. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. (P.B.MAJMUDAR), J. /ss