JUDGMENT A.R. Tiwari, J. 1. This order shall also dispose of connected matters C.R. No. 357/93. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kadar S/o Bhuraji and Ors. C.R. No. 359/93, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ikbal S/o Allaudin and Ors. C.R. No. 374/93 National Insurance Co. v. Mumtajbi D/o Bhuru Saleem and Ors. 2. The aforesaid revision petitions are directed against the order of an interims award passed in each case as under: CR. No. 360/93 Rs. 25000/- together with interest @ 15% p.a. in cases of no n- deposit within one month. CR. No. 357/93 Rs. 12000/- together with interest @ 15% p.a. if not deposit ed in one month. Cr. No. 359/93 Rs. 12000/- together with interest @ 12% p.a. if not deposit ed in one month. Cr. No. 374/93 Rs. 25,000/- together with interest @ 6% p.a. 3. The orders in three cases have been passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereas the order impugned in Cr. No. 374/93 has been passed by the Commissioner for workmen's compensation (Labour Court) Ujjain. 4. I have heard Shri Surjeet Singh learned Counsel for the applicant in three revision petitions and Shri A.H. Khan learned Counsel for the applicant in Cr. No. 374/93. 5. The orders have been challenged in this Court on the ground that the company is not liable to pay any amount by way of compensation. It is argued that when the company deserves to be exonerated from the liability then the Tribunal or the Court was not justified in foisting the liability. On this linchpin, it is urged that the order impugned in this revision petition is clearly subvertible and deserves to be anaesthetized. 6. The provision contained in Section 140 of the M.V. Act is benevolent one and is intended to offer prompt financial relief to the victim or the L.Rs. of the victim of the accident. In order that this object is not frustrated, the Tribunal or the Court is required to act promptly and spurned any attempt at procrastination. Such being the object, niceties of facts or of law are not required to engage the attention in detail. 7. of the victim of the accident. In order that this object is not frustrated, the Tribunal or the Court is required to act promptly and spurned any attempt at procrastination. Such being the object, niceties of facts or of law are not required to engage the attention in detail. 7. It is, however, apt to lay down certain conditions for safeguarding the interests of the company, apart from the fact that the company has the statutory right to recover the money from the owner of the vehicle in case its liability is not found to exist. 8. Having heard the learned Counsel, I am satisfied that the order is not interferable. Yet it is seems necessary to impose certain conditions in execution of the order. It is accordingly directed as under: (a) The claimant is permitted to withdraw the amount on furnishing solvent security to the satisfaction of the Tribunal for restitution of the amount in case the claim petition is disallowed against the company. (b) The claimant shall be liable to refund the amount to the company in case the claim petition fails either on non-prosecution or on merits against the applicant/ company. (c) The Tribunal is directed to expedite the conclusion of the claim petition and shall make an endeavour to dispose of. the case finally within a period of six months from today. 9. All the aforesaid revision petitions, however, fail and are dismissed summarily without notice to the other side, with the directions as above. The applicant is directed to produce certified copy of the order before the Tribunal for further action in the matter. Copy of this order shall also be placed in the record of CR. No. 357/93; CR. No. 359/93 and CR. No. 374/93.