N.K. Jain, J.@mdashThis appeal is directed against the interim award dated 24.8.1990 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar.
2. Mr. Vijay Agarwal, learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Tribunal has wrongly held the appellant liable to pay compensation alongwith interest u/s 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. He has submitted that no fault liability is only of the Insurance Company. He has also submitted that the learned Tribunal has not taken into consideration the provisions of Section 95, He has also submitted that the Company may be directed to deposit the awarded amount u/s 92-A and the appellant is prepared to furnish solvent security.
3. Mr. Gupta, learned Counsel for the respondent does not dispute that the vehicle was insured with the respondent No. 8 Insurance Co. but in this case the learned Judge after considering the material has not held, driver as well as the Insurance Company liable as there was no accident.
4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the order.
5. Section 95 deals with the requirements of Insurance policies and limits of liability shows that the insurer under the policy has to insure the person or classes of persons specified in Sub-section (2) against any liability which may be incurred by the owner in respect of the death or bodily injury to any person or damage to any third party. The amendment of Section 92 w.e.f. 1.10.82 has been introduced with a view to provide for an immediate payment of compensation to the hopeless and helpless victims of the motor vehicle accidents or their heirs, and this section provides for speedy summary enquiry in which the fault of any person is not relevant but it is confirmed to the identification of the victim and vehicle in the accident. The moment it is either admitted by the owner of the vehicle that his vehicle was involved in the accident or from the evidence adduced on the'' record the Tribunal positively holds that vehicle of the owner in question was involved in that accident. If he denied that fact and then if the Tribunal comes to a further prima facie conclusion that the vehicle was insured, then the Tribunal without inquiring into correctness of other objections that may be raised by the Insurance Company would be entitled to make the award u/s 92-A and require the Insurance Company to pay the given amount to the claimants forthwith and thereafter investigate and inquire into the correctness or otherwise of the other objections that are raised either by the Insurance Company or by the owner of the offending vehicle. In the instant case, the Tribunal has passed interim award u/s 92-A against the owner instead of Insurance Company. As stated above u/s 95 the Insurance Company indemnify the insured against any liability which may be incurred by the owner. Admittedly the offending vehicle is insured with the Insurance Company and, therefore, without making any enquiry, in my opinion, prima facie the Insurance Company is liable to pay the award u/s 92-A instead of the owner, the appellant, keeping in view that the victims for whom this beneficial legislation providing for an immediate aid has been introduced is not frustrated. Looking to the peculiar facts I deem it proper that this amount shall be paid by Insurance Company provided the owner, the appellant furnishes a solvent security to the satisfaction that if ultimately owner is held liable for the payment he will make to the Insurance Company, as the payment u/s 92-A is to be made without prejudice to the award.
6. The interim award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the same be paid by the Insurance Company instead of the appellant as stated above. This order will not prejudice either side on merits. It is expected of the Tribunal to expedite the matter. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed to the extent observed above.
