IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.521 of 2005 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD, through the Regional lManager, Regional Office, B.S.F.C. Building, Fraser Road, Patna ----- Appellants. Versus 1. MADHU DEVI, w/o. late Ravi Shankar Kumar, 2. Rashmila Devi, w/o. Butilal Singh, Both are r/o. Mill Tola, Naughachhia, P.S.Naugachhia, Distt. Bhagalpur, 3. Rama Shankar Pd @ Ramashankar Singh, r/o. village-Pakra, P.O. Pakra, P.S. Naugachhia, Distt. Bhagalpur. 4. Nandan Singh, s/o. K. Singh, r/o. T.265B, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi-110017. ---- Respondents. 18 05.12.2008 This appeal is against the order dated 26.07.2005 of the 3rd Addl. District Judge-cum-Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Naugachhia, passed in Claim Case No. 31 of 2005, whereby an interim compensation of Rs.50,000/- on no fault basis under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter be referred to as the Act) has been allowed to the claimsnts. The claimants namely, respondent Nos. l & 2 are the wife and mother of the deceased Ravi Shankar Kumar. The deceased Ravishankar Kumar was traveling in tempo No.BR-10P/245 which met an accident on 2.03.2004, 2 wherein injuries were caused to him and the deceased succumbed to the injuries when he was being taken to Bhagalpur Hospital for treatment. The respondent Nos.1 & 2 had filed the claim case against the appellant insurance company as the insurer and Rama Shankar Pd Singh as the owner of the Tempo. Insurance paper with regard to the vehicle having been insured by the appellant insurance company was filed before the claims tribunal. During the pendency of the claim case a petition under Section 140 of the Act was filed by the claimants and thereafter on simple ground that the vehicle was insured by the appellant insurance company, the learned Claims Tribunal vide the impugned order, allowed the interim compensation on no fault basis which is under challenge in this appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that no doubt at the time when the claim case was filed Ram Shankar Pd Singh was the owner of the vehicle but he happened to be the owner as a result of the ownership of the vehicle having been transferred to him by the deceased’s widow Madhu Devi on 30.07.2004 in view of 3 the fact that Madhu Devi, the widow of the deceased had inherited the ownership of the vehicle after deceased’s death and, thereafter, her name mentioned on transfer in her favour on 23.07.2004. In support of his submission learned counsel for the appellant referred to Annexure-A, the registration certificate with regard to the vehicle i.e., the tempo, which is in the name of the deceased Ravi Shankar Kumar as it’s owner and it mentions endorsement indicating the transfer of the vehicle in favour of his widow Madhu Devi on 23.07.2004 and further transfer in favour of Ram Shankar Prasad Singh on 30.07.2004. The learned counsel for the appellant also referred to Annexure-B, which is the M.V.I.’s report dated 8.04.2004 with regard to the examination of the vehicle after the accident and in this report the owner of the vehicle has been mentioned as Ravi Kumar i.e., the deceased. Learned counsel for the appellant also referred to Annexure-C, which the copy of police diary regarding the case instituted in connection with the accident and it contains the statement of informant Mahesh Gupta, who stated before the I.O. that the person injured in the 4 accident was Ravi Shankar Kumar (deceased) who was the owner of the tempo. The materials as contended above by the appellant’s counsel are indicative of the facts that the deceased Ravi Shankar Kumar was the owner of the vehicle at the time of accident and that after accident deceased’s widow Madhu Devi, one of the claimants was mentioned in the registration certificate as the owner and thereafter the vehicle was shown to have been transferred to Ram Shankar Pd. Singh. Learned counsel for the respondent/claimants submitted that the vehicle was not transferred to the present owner Ram Shankar Prasad Singh on the dates on which it is shown to have been transferred to him in the registration certificate. But the vehicles was sold to him (Ram Shankar Pd. Singh) on 3.02.2004 i.e., much prior to the date of accident. But in support of the submission any paper has not been produced before this Court. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the policy executed by the appellant Insurance Company covered the risk “own damage” and “third party”, meaning 5 thereby, the damage to the vehicle and the third party relating to the vehicle. It was also submitted that the policy as executed by the Insurance Company under the provisions of Section 147 of the Act did not cover any “personal accident risk” of the owner, hence, the insurance is not liable to make any kind of payment of compensation in respect of the injuries or damages suffered by the owner i.e., the deceased in connection with the accident. Referring to the copy of insurance policy filed as Annexure-1, it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that premium of Rs.3,940/- had been realized by the insurance company for the coverage of damage to the vehicle and damage to the third party. Learned counsel also submitted that the insurance policy does not show payment of any premium towards personal accident of the owner making the insurance company liable for payment of any compensation to the owner. In support of his contention, learned counsel cited the decision in the case of Dhanraj V. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and another reported in (2004)8 S.C.C. 553, wherein the Apex Court has held that insurance 6 policy under Section 147 does not require an insurance company to assume the risk of death or bodily injury to the owner of the vehicle and that such an insurance policy is only to indemnify the insured against liabilities incurred towards a third person or in respect of the damages to property and that a owner of the vehicle can only claim a payout in respect of bodily injury to himself provided, he is specifically covered by the policy in question. Thus, the policy as executed by the appellants in this case does not appear to have covered the risk of the owner because any separate premium for the coverage of the risk of the owner is not shown to have been realized by the insurer company, the appellant. No doubt, an interim compensation under Section 140 of the Act is paid on the basis of no fault basis but before passing an order for making such payment prima facie it is necessary to consider the liability of the party against whom order for payment is passed. In this case the learned Claims Tribunal has passed the impugned order without considering the claims of both sides in this regard; therefore, the order cannot be sustained in law. 7 In such view of the matters, the impugned order is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Claims Tribunal, who will pass the order accordingly keeping in view the position of law as discussed above in the decisions of the Apex Court. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the matter is remanded to the court-below. Learned counsel submits that a sum of Rs.25,000/- the statutory amount was deposited at the time of filing of this appeal and he seeks permission to withdraw it. He is permitted to withdraw the amount. Mkr. (C.M. Prasad, J.)