JUDGMENT This revision application challenges the order dated 2.4.92, passed by the M.A.C. Tribunal, Indore, awarding a sum of Rs. 12,000/- by way of an interim award under S. 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to the applicant before it. Shri S. V. Dandvate, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was no sufficient material before the Court to infer that any permanent disablement has been suffered by the claimant and that the Insurance Company was liable to pay the same. He pointed out that the percentage of disability could be decided only after the evidence was led. It was also pointed out that in the criminal case instituted on the basis of the same accident, it was not found that any grievious injury was caused and the case was instituted under S. 279/337 of the Indian Penal Code alone and the medical record of that case shows that there was no grievous injury in the finger suffered by the claimant. The non-applicant in the written argument filed has submitted that in the narrow scope of the revision no interference can be made in the case. It was also stated that no fault liability cannot be disputed and statement of injuries in the criminal case in not binding on the Claims Tribunal. Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, no doubt provides for a no fault liability but does not specify the stage at which the award passed on no fault liability could be given. Granting that, an interim award can be passed on the basis of no fault liability, it would appear that it could be done only in such cases where two things are crystal clear; (1) that the accident took place involving the vehicle, which was driven, owned or insured by the opposite parties and (2) that the claimant suffered permanent injury at such accident. If these two things are not beyond reasonable doubt, it would be hazardous to make an interim award. Moreover, it will also have to be prima facie proved that permanent disablement had been suffered by the claimant. If suffering of a permanent disablement is not beyond reasonable doubt, an interim award should not be made. In this case in the application no specific permanent disablement has been stated. Moreover, it will also have to be prima facie proved that permanent disablement had been suffered by the claimant. If suffering of a permanent disablement is not beyond reasonable doubt, an interim award should not be made. In this case in the application no specific permanent disablement has been stated. It has been just averred that the applicant suffered fracture in the right hand finger and the finger has not remained straight. The accident is dated 9.1.1991. The claim was filed on 6.5.91 and a medical certificate dated 10.12.91 was filed on the letter head of one Dr. S.K. Benarjee, which does not quote the registration number of the doctor, certifying 18% of permanent disablement. In these circumstances, it could not have been presumed that the claimant did suffer permanent disablement. It was not such a case where on the basis of no fault liability, an interim award under S. 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 could have been made. The claimant has to wait till final decision of the case proving permanent disablement and then only be would be able to invoke S. 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This revision application is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order is set aside. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Let the record of the case be sent back immediately.