JUDGMENT S. N. Phukan, C J—By this common judgment and order we dispose of three appeals, namely, F. A. O. (MVA) No. 326 of 1993 and F. A. Os. (MVA) No. 5 and 7 of 1994 as the point involved in all the appeals is same. The appeals have been filed by the Insurance Company being aggrieved by the award, by which the Insurance Company was saddled with no fault liability under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. All the appeals have been filed against the common award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-l, Sirmaur at Nahan, dated 1-9-1993, passed in M. A. C. Petition Nos 51-N/2/ 48-N/2, 47-N/2, 49-N/2 and 5O-N/2 of 1990. By this judgment, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal clubbed together all the claim petitions. 3. Briefly stated, the facts are as follows : "The truck No UMS-8161 was owned by Kirti Singh Pokhriyal and as he did not appear, all the appeals have been taken up ex parte against him. The truck was insured with the present appellant-Insurance Company and Ex. R-3 is the Insurance Policy, On 26-4-1990 at about 11 a. m. the truck met with an accident at a place, known as, Mannal. The truck was carrying some persons and in the said accident the driver and some of the persons, who were being carried in the truck died, and some other persons, who were also travelling, suffered multiple injuries. It is alleged that some debris was lying on the road at the site of the accident and the driver got the debris removed and tried to cross that portion of the road though the persons on board on the truck asked the driver not to take the risk but he did not pay any heed and as soon as the truck reached the site, DANGA’ gave way and it rolled down and fell about 100 feet below. The claim petitions were filed by the dependents of the deceased as well as the injured persons, By the impugned award, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded various sums in respect of the claim petitioners. The claim petitions were filed by the dependents of the deceased as well as the injured persons, By the impugned award, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded various sums in respect of the claim petitioners. In the claim petition filed by Smt. Nazro Devi and her minor children (M. A. C. Petition No. 5I-N/2 of 1990) in respect of the death a sum of Rs 1 lac was awarded and it was directed that a sum of Rs, 25,000 shall be paid by the Insurance Company under section 140 of the Act. Similarly, in the claim petitions filed by Smt. Maina Devi (M. A. C. Petition No. 47-N/2 of 1990), Shri Bhajnoo (M. A. C Petition No. 49-N/2 of 1990), and Smt. Gurdevi (M. A. C. Petition No. 50-N/2 of 1990), the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal also directed payment of Rs. 25,000 under section 140 of the Act by the appellant. The owner was saddled with liability of the balance amount of the award in respect of the claim petitions." 4. The short point to be decided is whether this direction of awarding interim compensation under section 140 of the Act against the Insurance Company is legally valid or not. 5. Section 140 finds place in a separate Chapter, namely, Chapter X’ under the heading, Liability Without Fault in Certain Cases’, of the Act. Section 144 of the Act, which comes under the above Chapter, provides that this Chapter has the effect notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act or of any other law for the time being in force. 6. Various decisions have been cited at the Bar, both in support and against the contention that the Insurance Company is not liable for this amount. 7. Gauhati High Court speaking through Honble Mr. Justice Hansaria, as his Lordship was then, in New India Assurance Co. Ltd, v. Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and others, 1988 ACJ 612, considered the question as to whether Insurance Company by virtue of section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, can claim that as per the terms of the policy the Company is not liable to pay interim award under section 92-A of that Act, which is similar to section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and, it was held that Company is liable. 8. 8. The Andhra Pradesh High Court in K. Ramulu and others v Shaik Khaja and others, 1991 ACJ 359, rejected the plea that under section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 only owner is liable to pay compensation under this Act and held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation under the above section. 9. The Kerala High Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Savithri, 1 (1990) ACC 85, held that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal correctly decided that the Insurance Company also vicariously liable to pay interim compensation. 10. The Single Bench of Gauhati High Court speaking through one of us (S. N Phukan, C. J ), in Babban Tiwari and another v. Usha Ranjan Chakraborty and others, 1 (1988) ACC 130, coasideied section 92-A and section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and held that in section 92-A, though the word owner’ has been used, the insurer shall have to indemnify the owner for any amount awarded under section 92-A. 11. The Rajasthan High Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd. v Smt. Ghisi Devi and others, I (1990) ACC 109, considered section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and held that this section provides for award of compensation on the basis of no fault liability and the Tribunal cannot inquire the merits of the defences available to the Insurance Company under section 95 of the Act. It was further held that in case the Insurance Company ultimately proves that it was not liable to pay any compensation then the Insurance Company can claim the amount from the owner of the vehicle under section 96 of the Act. 12. From the above ratio including the ratio of the Gauhati High Court in Babban Tiwar’s case (supra), we hold that while giving interim compensation under section 92 -A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 corresponding to section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Tribunal is , not to make an enquiry regarding the defences taken by the Insurance Company and the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation awarded ) under the above section. 13 From the evidence on record as well as from the award, we find that the persons who died or got injuries carried in the truck, there is nothing on record to show that it was so done without the authority of the owner or the driver. 13 From the evidence on record as well as from the award, we find that the persons who died or got injuries carried in the truck, there is nothing on record to show that it was so done without the authority of the owner or the driver. There is no acceptable evidence to show that the owner gave any specific instructions to the driver not to carry any passenger. On the other hand, from the evidence of Gulab Singh (PW 1 (C)), we find that he paid Rs. 5 to the driver for carrying him in the truck. As most of the people were illiterate and rustic villagers who got injuries and other persons died, we accept the evidence of above witness, namely, Gulab Singh and hold that persons, who were carried in the truck were carried for hire. 14. A Division Bench of this Court in United India Insurance Company v. Smt Sukha Devi and others, F. A. O. (MVA) No 176 of 1984 and batch, decided on 2nd March, 1995, held that in similar cases the Insurance Company is liable for the claim. We see no reason to take a different view. Therefore, in these appeals on this ground also the Insurance Company is liable for the compensation awarded. As there are no cross-objections, we cannot decide as to whether the claimants are entitled to recover the entire awarded amount from the Insurance Company, but we hold that the proportionate compensation awarded against the Insurance Company by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was right and legal Let us consider as to whether gratuitous passengers were liable to get compensation. 15. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and another v. Satyanath Hazarika and others, 1989 ACJ 685, a Bench of five Judges of Gauhati High Court speaking through Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hansaria, as his Lordship was then, also considered (he question whether the families of deceased gratuitous passengers or such injured persons are entitled to get compensation from the Insurance Company and the Court relying on various decisions of different High Courts including the apex Court and statutory instructions of the Tariff Advisory Committee, which is a statutory body, inter alia, held that the instructions of the Tariff Advisory Committee issued on 25-3-1977 would apply and as such Insurance Company will be liable to pay compensation even to gratuitous passengers 16. A copy of the part of the instructions issued by the said Committee has been made available to us and from the said instructions, we find under the heading Legal Liability to Non-Fare Paying Passengers other than Statutory Liability except Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 (Commercial Vehicles only), it was directed, inter alia, as follows : "In consideration of the payment of an additional premium of Rs. ...... .. and notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section II-I (b) and (c) it is hereby understood and agreed that the company will indemnify the Insured against his legal liability other than liability under Statute (except the Fata/ Accidents Act, 1855) in respect of death of or bodily injury to: (i) Any employee of the within named insured who is not a workman within the meaning of the Workmens Compensation Act prior to the date of this endorsement and not being carried for hire or reward. (ii) Any other person not being carried for hire or reward provided that the person is— (a) The owner or representative of the owner of the goods. (b) Charterer or representative of the charterer of the truck. (c) Any other person directly connected with the journey in one form or other being carried in or upon or entering or mounting or alighting from any Motor Vehicle described in the Schedule of the Policy. Subject otherwise to the terms, exceptions, conditions and limitation of this Policy." 17. Nothing has been placed before us to show that in the present insurance policy any condition or limitation was imposed, which is applicable to the case in hand Therefore^ in addition to what we have held, that is, the passengers who were travelling with the consent of the owner/driver on payment; even if they were gratuitous passengers, the Insurance Company is liable for the compensation. No other point has been urged before us. 18. For the reasons stated above, we do not fiad any merit in all the three appeals and, therefore, they are dismissed Costs on the parties. Appeals dismissed.