[2025:RJ-JP:19287] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 979/2007 Arjun Son of Shri Bhura Lal, Aged About 40 Years, Resident of Village Granshi, Tehsil Niwai, District Tonk. ----Appellant/Claimant Versus 1. Hanuman Singh Son of Shri Tej Singh Bhati, Resident of House No.467, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur. 2. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation through its General Manager, 'RSRTC' Parivahan Marg, Jaipur. ----Respondents/Defendants For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ram Singh Rathore, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendar Meel, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 07/05/2025 1. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the service upon respondent No.1-Hanuman Singh may kindly be dispensed with. 2. Considering the submissions so advanced by learned counsel for the appellant, the service upon respondent No.1-Hanuman Singh is dispensed with at the risk and cost of the appellant. 3. Service upon remaining respondent is complete. 4. With the consent of both the parties, the matter is heard finally. 5. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1988'), challenging the judgment/award dated 20.05.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims [2025:RJ-JP:19287] (2 of 4) [CMA-979/2007] Tribunal/Additional District Judge (F.T.) No.3, Tonk in Claim Petition No.745/2005 (2968/2001). 6. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant-claimant filed a claim petition for compensation on account of injuries caused in a road accident on 15.07.2001. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant that the injured-appellant was 35 years of age at the time of accident and was working as an agriculturist thereby earning Rs.4,000/- per month and, therefore, prayed for compensation with regard to injuries sustained in the accident. 8. The respondents filed the reply to the claim petition and denied the averments made in the petition and prayed for dismissal of the same. 9. That during the pendency of claim petition, the learned Tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/- as an interim compensation to the appellant-claimant under Section 140 of the Act of 1988 on the basis of 'no fault liability'. 10. The respondent paid the amount of interim compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the appellant-claimant on 'no fault liability'. 11. It is not in dispute that the interim award of Rs.25,000/- was disbursed in favour of the claimant. The claim petition filed by the appellant-claimant has been dismissed merely for want of evidence as the appellant despite providing opportunities failed to lead any evidence and accordingly, the claim petition was dismissed and in the operative part of the order, the learned Tribunal ordered that the respondent who had already paid the amount of interim compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the appellant, shall have a right to recover the same from the appellant. [2025:RJ-JP:19287] (3 of 4) [CMA-979/2007] 12. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that it is well settled proposition of law that once an amount of compensation is paid to the claimant on the ground of 'no fault liability', the same ought not to be recovered. 13. In order to buttress the argument, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has drawn the attention of this Court towards the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Indra Devi & Ors. Vs. Bagada Ram & Anr." (Civil Appeal No. 1508/2004) decided on 18.08.2010, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court had set aside the orders, so far it permits the respondents to recover the amount of interim compensation along with interest from the appellant-claimant. 14. The aforesaid legal proposition is not disputed by learned counsel for the respondents. But he supported the impugned award. 15. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. 16. In view of the settled position of law as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Indra Devi" (supra), I am of the considered view that once the amount of interim compensation is paid to the claimant, the respondent has no right to recover the same, especially when the claim petition was rejected due to failure of the appellant to lead any evidence. The impugned direction is clearly erroneous and unsustainable in law. The Tribunal has completely failed to realize the true nature and character of the compensation in terms of section 140 of the Act. The marginal heading to section 140 describes it as based 'on the principle of no fault'. As the expression 'no fault' suggests the [2025:RJ-JP:19287] (4 of 4) [CMA-979/2007] compensation under section 140 is regardless of any wrongful act, neglect or default of the person in respect of whose death the claim is made. Therefore, the present appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment/award dated 20.05.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge (F.T.) No.3, Tonk in Claim Petition No.745/2005 (2968/2001), is quashed and set aside to the extent it has given right to the respondent to recover the amount of compensation paid as interim relief under Section 140 of the Act of 1988 from the appellant. 17. Accordingly, this appeal filed by the appellant-claimant is allowed and the impugned judgment and award dated 20.05.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge (F.T.) No.3, Tonk in Claim Petition No.745/2005 (2968/2001) so far as it permits the respondent to recover the amount of interim compensation along with the interest from the claimant-appellant is set-aside and impugned award is modified to the extent mentioned herein above and the respondent is restrained from making any recovery from the appellant-claimant. 18. Stay application and other pending applications also stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J AMIT/32 Whether Reportable : Yes/No