@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Mr. R.P. Dholaria, J. (Oral) - This is an appeal preferred by the Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited against the interim award dated 17.06.2016, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), 5th Additional District Judge, Rajkot, (hereinafter referred as learned Tribunal for sake of brevity) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.97 of 2012, which came to be filed by the original claimants seeking compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
2. Heard Mr.Maulik Shelat, learned advocate for the appellant Insurance Company and perused the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal. Since this appeal is arising from the interim awards passed by the learned Tribunal, this appeal are taken up for final hearing at admission stage.
3. Mr. Maulik Shelat, learned advocate for the appellant Insurance Company has contended that the insurance policy in question produced by the claimants is fake policy and therefore, no liability could have been fastened upon the Insurance Company. He has further contended that in spite of raising such issue, the learned Tribunal has fastened the liability upon the Insurance Company by recording the finding that such issue can be decided only after full fledged trial. He has relied upon the grounds set out in memo of the appeals. He has further argued that fake policy on record is similar with previous policy issued by the appellant and premium amount is also the same which cannot happen. This itself indicates that the policy on record is fake policy. In support of his contention, he has relied upon Section 64(V)(B) of the Insurance Act.
4. On going through the impugned award, it appears that the issue regarding fake insurance policy can only be established after full fledged trial which requires adducing evidence and examining the witnesses thereof. Moreover, as stated by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, criminal complaint filed by the Insurance Company are pending for investigation. Therefore, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to decide the aforesaid issue of fake policy raised by the learned counsel.
5. In this view of the aforesaid facts and taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it appears to be appropriate to direct the learned Tribunal to consider the aforesaid contention raised by the learned advocate for the Insurance Company at the time of consideration of main claim petitions and the learned Tribunal shall not treat it to be constructive res judicata while considering the main claim petitions.
6. However, this Court is inclined to direct the appellant Insurance Company to deposit the awarded amount before the learned Tribunal and on being deposit as such, the said awarded amount shall be invested in cumulative FDRs till final disposal of claim petitions. Needless to state that the amount granted while considering application under Section 140 of the MV Act shall be subject to final outcome of the main claim petition. It is further clarified that if any claim petition is withdrawn or dismissed in any manner qua present appellant, in that event, the amount deposited by the appellant Insurance Company shall be refunded along with interest accrued. It is also made clear that this Court has not render any decision on merits and the learned Tribunal, without being influenced in any manner, shall decide the claim petitions independently.
7. With the aforesaid directions, the present appeal stands disposed of.
