JUDGMENT A.R. Tiwari, J. 1. This Order shall also dispose of Civil Revision No. 407/93 Woman Rao v. M.P. S.R.T.C. and Ors. C.r. No. 408/93 Leelabai v. M.P.S.R.T.C. and Ors. and C.R. No. 409/93 Muktabai v. M.P.S.R.T.C. and Ors. 2. In this revision petition, as also in the aforesaid three revision petitions, the order passed by the Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Shajapur refusing the interim award, is under challenge. 3. This revision petition pertains to Claim Case No. 45/90 in which order was passed on 3.3.93, C.R. No. 407/93 pertains to order dated 21.4.93 rendered by M.A.C.T. Shajapur in Claim Case No. 27/90, C.R. No. 408/93 relates to the order dated 21.4.93 passed by the Member Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shajapur in Claim Case No. 29/90 and C.R. No. 409/93 refers to the order dated 3.3.93 rendered by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shajapur in Claim Case 40/90. 4. The aforesaid revision petition is barred by time as there is delay of 122 days in presentation of the same. C.R. No. 408/93 is barred by time as it is filed after 108 days from the date of the expiry of the time prescribed for such revisions. C.R. No. 409/90 is barred by time as it is presented after 113 days and C.R. No. 407/93 is also barred by time as it is presented after 122 days. 5. I have heard Shri M.S. Vashishtha, learned Counsel for the applicants in each case. 6. As noted above, this revision petition has been filed against the order declaring interim award in terms of Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 7. The aforesaid provision is benevolent one intended to offer financial aid, in the shape of interim award, promptly to the victim or L.Rs. of the victim of the accident on the basis of 'no-fault liability' It is well established that Tribunal is obligated to pass the order just on its prima facie satisfaction. The under-noted facts should be regarded as sufficient: (a) Vehicle is involved in the accident. (b) Owner has an Insurance Policy covering the liability under litigation. (c) Owner is joined as a party to the petition. (d) Permanent disability is suffered or death is caused due to accident as pleaded. In the absence of insurance of the vehicle, the order can be made against the owner/driver of the vehicle. 8. (b) Owner has an Insurance Policy covering the liability under litigation. (c) Owner is joined as a party to the petition. (d) Permanent disability is suffered or death is caused due to accident as pleaded. In the absence of insurance of the vehicle, the order can be made against the owner/driver of the vehicle. 8. The Tribunal, however, seems to be totally oblivious of legislative mandate and intent and appears to have declined to pass award casually, not judicially. The reasons are not tenable in law. 9. Yet, I decline interference because the revision petition is hopelessly barred by time and there is no causey much less good and sufficient, shown to earn condonation of delay. Apart from this, the scope of interference in revisional jurisdiction is demonstrably little and limited. 10. Consequently, I say monosyllabic 'no' to the prayer for reversal of the order and opt to dismiss' all four revision petitions. Yet, I deem it proper to direct the Tribunal to decide the claim petition by 28.2.1994. If necessary, proceedings may be continued on day-to-day basis. 11. Let a copy of this order be also placed in the record of each of the connected revision petitions as particularised above. 12. The applicant-claimant shall produce the certified copy of this order before the Tribunal immediately. Certified copy of this order be supplied today on payment of usual charges.