1. This order shall also govern the disposal of M.A No. 262/89 (National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nisar Khan), M.A No. 263/89 (National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mohd. Ishaq), M.A No. 264/89 (National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Razzak Khan), M.A No. 265/89 (National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kalekhan), M.A No. 267/89 (National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kele Khan), M.A No. 268/89 (National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ayyub Beg), M.A No. 269/89 (National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sheikh Amin), M.A No. 270/89 (National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bismillaha) and M.A No. 266/89 (National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jahid Hussain).

2. This appeal as also the connected appeals Nos. 262 to 270 of 1989 are filed by the Insurance Company against the interim Award dated 29-6-1989 made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Garoth in Claim Cases Nos. 16/86, 19/86, 17/86, 24/86, 22/86, 25/86, 18/86, 23/86, 21/86 and 15/86 respectively whereby an interim compensation of Rs. 15,000/- under section 92-A of the M.V Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) has been awarded in respect of the death of each of the deceased persons viz., Salmabai w/o Sabirkhan, Sabanabai d/o Nisarkhan, Chhotibai w/o Ishaq, Shahirabi d/o Abdul Razzaq, Faridabanoo w/o Sabuddin, Sahabuddin s/o Kalekhan, Rehimanbai w/o Alam Khan Seikh Salim s/o Seikh Amin, Rabim Baksh s/o Kasamji and an interim compensation of Rs. 7,500/- under section 92-A of the Act has been awarded in respect of the injuries sustained by the injured claimant Jahid Hussain.

3. The facts giving rise to this appeal, as per the claim petition, are as follows:—

In the night of 14-5-1985 the marriage party of Sabbir consisting of 60 to 70 persons including ladies and minor children were returning after marriage from Neemuch to Shamgarh in Truck No. C.P.U 5169 and while the truck was passing through Sangram Ghat it toppled down due to rash and negligent driving of the driver-owner of the truck. As a result of this accident the passengers in the truck sustained serious injuries and many of them succumbed to the injuries. On claim petitions having been filed by the respective LRs. of the above-named deceased persons and the claimant-injured Jahid Hussain and a petition under section 92-A of the Act having been moved in each case, for interim compensation on the principle of ‘no fault liability’, the learned Tribunal awarded interim compensation of Rs. 15,000/- in respect of the death of each of the above-named deceased persons and Rs. 7,500/- in respect of the injuries sustained by the claimant injured.

4. The Award of compensation under section 92-A of the Act has been made against the owner driver Shafi Mohd. as well as the appellant-insurer with whom the offending truck stood insured during the material time on the view taken by the Tribunal that both the insured and the insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay the interim compensation.

5. Being aggrieved by the Award made against the appellant Insurance Company it has filed these appeals.

6. The main contention of the appellant Insurance Co. is that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in not considering the fact that risk of passenger travelling in a truck i.e a goods vehicle is not required to be covered under section 95 of the Act nor the Policy of Insuence covered it. As such, no liability attaches to the appellant Insurance Company.

7. Section 92-A(1) of the Act provides for liability of the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident, to pay compensation in respect of the death or permanent disablement of any person caused in the accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle on the principle of no fault liability. A claim for compensation on the principle of no fault liability under section 92-A is required to ‘be disposed of as expeditiously as possible’, as per sub-section (2) of section 92-B of the Act.

8. The underlying purpose envisaged in the provisions of section 92-A(1) and 92-B(2) of the Act apparently is to provide social security against motor accident and to make available an interim relief urgently to the injured person or in case of death by accident to the members of the family of the deceased. This salutary humanistic purpose shall be defeated if the Tribunal were to be invited at the stage of interim award to decide contested questions of fact and law which the Tribunal can appropriately decide only after complete trial of the claim petition. The controversy as to liability of the insured and insurance inter se should not be allowed to hamper making of an interim Award since it can appropriately be deferred to be decided on completion of the trial by the Tribunal which is empowered to make suitable directions under section 96(4) of the Act to meet the ends of justice.

9. The amended definition of ‘liability’ in section 93 of the Act, provides that the word “liability” wherever used in relation to the death or bodily injury to any person includes the liability in respect thereof under section 92-A. The liability required to be statutorily covered in a policy of insurance as per section 95 of the Act, therefore, includes the liability arising under section 92-A of the Act.

10. Section 95(1)(b) of the Act envisages a policy of insurance to insure the vehicle owner against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of use of the vehicle in a public place. In the case of a vehicle being a goods vehicle section 95(2)(a) of the Act provides that the policy of insurance shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any one accident upto a limit 1,50,000/- in all including liabilities if any, arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act in respect of employees (other than the driver) not exceeding six in number, being carried in the vehicle.

11. The learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company has contended that the vehicle involved in the accident being a truck, it was neither insured nor was required to be insured for carrying passengers and as such, the Insurance Co. cannot be held liable in respect of the death and injuries caused to the passengers travelling in the truck. This contention on merits cannot be prima facie accepted at this stage, since it would require closer examination of facts and law for deciding the contention and that can appropriately be done at the final stage of the trial.

12. In a decision of this Court in Dwarika v. Bise, 1990 ACJ 283, it has been held that if it is admitted or prima facie proved from the material available on record that the vehicle involved in the accident was insured, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hold the Insurance Co., jointly and severally liable with the owner of the vehicle for no fault liability under section 92-A, requiring the Insurance Co. to pay the amount of interim compensation to the claimants forthwith and at that stage the Tribunal is not bound to enquire into or record a finding as to sustainability or otherwise of the objections raised by the Insurance Co. that it was not liable at all. Another decision of this Court to the similar effect is in the case of National Insurance Co. v. Smt. Savitri, 1991 MPLJ 46 : 1990 JLJ 664, which emphasises that for making interim award under section 92-A of the Act only owner and insurer of the offending vehicle are to be ascertained and time consuming enquiry cannot be held at the stage of payment of interim compensation. In another decision of this Court in the United Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Rajadevi, M.A No. 242/90 decided on 8-4-1991, which takes into account a contrary view of Full Bench decision of the Karnataka High Court in United India Insurance Co. v. Immam Aminasab Nadaf*, 1990 ACJ 757, the view taken has been expressed thus:

“In view of the discussion aforesaid, it seems that the interim Award of compensation on the principle of no fault liability, being in the nature of urgent partial relief to the claimant, the only material fact to be ascertained at the stage of making interim Award against the Insurance Company by the Tribunal is whether or not the vehicle involved in the accident stood insured with the said Insurance Company. Once it is not disputed that the vehicle was so insured with the non-applicant Insurance Company, the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to make an interim Award jointly against the insured and the insurer. Any legal objection or legal contention of the insurer based on facts to be enquired during the trial of the claim petition cannot be allowed to hamper making of an interim Award by the Tribunal against the insurer. The legal questions raised in the objection of the Insurance Company which require proper material to be brought in evidence or sorting out the true legal position after indepth consideration of the legal controversy raised by the parties should properly be left to be decided at the conclusion of the case resulting in the final Award and at that final stage equities can be worked out between the insured and the insurer and in case the insurer is not found liable it can be directed to be reimbursed by the insured, even in respect of the liability imposed on the insurer under the interim order.”

13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having considered the impugned orders and the material placed before the Tribunal, I am of the opinion that the impugned interim Awards cannot be said to be illegal or unreasonable so as to call for interference in this appeal and the other connected appeals.

14. In the result, therefore, this appeal as also the connected appeals viz. M.As Nos. 262/89, 263/89, 264/89, 265/89, 267/89, 268/89, 269/89, 270/89 and M.A No. 266/89 are dismissed, being without merit, with no order as to cost.

Appeals dismissed.