Narayan Roy JUDGMENT
S.B. Sinha, J.
1. This appeal has been referred by a learned single Judge of this court by order dated 20.8.1993 to a Division Bench, inter alia, for consideration of the following questions:
(i) Whether an appeal is maintainable against an order passed by the Accidents Claims Tribunal under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988;
(ii) Whether the Tribunal can direct payment of interest while passing an order under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
2. In view of the pure questions of law involved in this appeal, it is not necessary to notice the fact of the matter in a great detail.
3. It appears that respondent Nos. 1 to 6 filed an application in terms of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, who has also been appointed as the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. By reason of the impugned order dated 4.4.1991, the learned Judicial Commissioner has directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- by way of an ad interim compensation with an interest of 12 per cent per annum from the date of presentation of the petition within one month.
4. Mr. P.K. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has submitted that the direction to pay the compensation in terms of provisions of Section 140 of the aforesaid Act would also be deemed to be an award within the meaning of Section 173 thereof and thus an appeal would be maintainable. The learned counsel in support of his contention relied upon a Division Bench decision of the Kerala High Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Padmavathy MANU/KE/0103/1990. The learned counsel further submitted that in any event the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has no jurisdiction to grant interest while passing an order of ad interim compensation. Learned counsel in support of his contention has relied upon Dhapa Kanwar v. Kishanlal MANU/RH/0098/1991
5. Mr. N.N. Tiwary, learned counsel appealing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that from a plain reading of Section 140 of the said Act, it would appear that for the purpose of exercising jurisdiction in terms thereof, no adjudication about the rival contentions/ claims of the parties is required to be made, nor the parties can join the issues in relation thereto and as such an order passed thereunder cannot be said to be appealable. According to the learned counsel, an order passed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be held to be an award for the purpose of maintainability of an appeal in terms of Section 173 thereof. The learned counsel in support of his contention has relied upon a decision in the case of Gaya Prasad v. Suresh Kumar MANU/MP/0078/1991 It was further submitted that the Claims Tribunal has an inherent power to grant interest pendente lite. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel has relied upon a decision of the Bombay High Court in Prakash Chandumal Khatri v. Suresh Pahilajrai Makhija MANU/MH/0063/1991
6. It appears that different High Courts have taken different views with regard to the maintainability of an appeal as also with regard ........