JUDGMENT 1. - The instant misc. appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as 'Act of 1988') has been filed against the interim compensation dated 5.9.1994 passed by M.A.C.T., Raisinghnagar in MACT Claim Case No. 87/93 giving interim compensation of Rs. 12,500 under Section 140 of the aforesaid Act. 2. A pointed question was asked to the learned counsel for the appellant as to whether the order passed under Section 140 of the Act of 1988 is appealable within the meaning of Section 173 of the said Act ? In reply to the aforesaid query the learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision rendered by learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. v. Mst. Hasi and Ors. , decided on 21.7.1995. 3. In case of Oriental Insurance Co. (supra) the learned Single Judge expressed his agreement with the view taken in a decision by a Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court reported in 1989 ACJ page 1129 holding that an order granting an interim compensation under Section 92A (old Act) is in the nature of passing an award and is appealable under Section 110D (old Act). According to the aforesaid Division Bench revision under Section 115 CPC is not tenable. 4. In view of the aforesaid judgment rendered by the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court the learned Single Judge of this Court ruled that against an interim compensation under Section 140 of the Act of 1988 an appeal under Section 173 of the Act of 1988 is maintainable. I respectfully concur with the view taken by the learned Single Judge of this Court and hold that against an interim compensation an appear is maintainable under Section 173 of the Act of 1988. 5. The next contention of the learned counsel for the appellant before me is that before awarding interim compensation within the meaning of Section 140(2) of the Act of 1988 the Tribunal, is under legal obligation to record a positive finding regarding permanent disablement of a claimant. In support of his aforesaid contention the learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on an unreported decision rendered by learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. v. Sheesh Ram & Ors. decided on 10.4.1991. 6. In support of his aforesaid contention the learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on an unreported decision rendered by learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. v. Sheesh Ram & Ors. decided on 10.4.1991. 6. I have critically examined the order impugned passed by Tribunal awarding interim compensation to the claimant. I have also perused the injury report of the claimant furnished by the learned counsel for the appellant. 7. A close scrutiny of the injury report of the claimant reveals that the claimant had received numerous injuries including fracture and compound fracture. The aforesaid injury report of the claimant, further leads towards an irresistible conclusion that medical jurist while examining the injuries of claimant had advised three X-Ray of those injuries. 8. I asked to the learned counsel for appellant to produce the X-Ray reports in order to verify as to whether injuries caused to the claimant are capable to fall within the definition of permanent disablement as contemplated under Section 142 of the Act of 1988. At this stage the learned counsel for the appellant expressed his inability to furnish the X-Ray reports. 9. In my humble opinion the facts of the unreported judgment rendered by learned Single Judge in the case of New India Assurance Co. (supra) are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The facts and circumstances of the present case leads towards an irresistible conclusion that the numerous injuries suffered by the claimant are capable to cause permanent disablement as contemplated under Section 142 of the Act of 1988. 10. In my humble opinion the burden of proof lies upon the appellant to satisfy to this Court that the injuries suffered by the claimant prima facie do not fall within the definition of permanent disablement as contemplated under Section 142 of the Act of 1988. The appellant has deliberately avoided to file the three X-Ray reports of the injuries suffered by the claimant in the present case hence an adverse inference is to be drawn against the appellant to the effect that if three X-Ray reports of the claimant would have been filed it would have been disproved the case of the appellant. 11. The appellant has deliberately avoided to file the three X-Ray reports of the injuries suffered by the claimant in the present case hence an adverse inference is to be drawn against the appellant to the effect that if three X-Ray reports of the claimant would have been filed it would have been disproved the case of the appellant. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously urged before me that the tribunal before awarding interim compensation under Section 140(2) of the Act of 1988 must record a positive finding about privation of sight of either eye or hearing of either ear, or destruction or permanent impairment of the powers of any member or joint or permanent disfiguration of the head or face. 12. The aforesaid argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is not acceptable to me in as much as while awarding interim compensation the tribunal is not required to record a positive finding after analytical discussion of oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties but it is only required to be prima facie satisfied from the injury report or other material on record about the nature of injuries as contemplated under Section 142 of the Act of 1988. Apart from the nature of injuries argued by the learned counsel for the appellant privation of any member or joint of an injured claimant also amount permanent disablement within the meaning of Section 142 of the said Act. Intricate question about the nature of injuries can be ascertained only at the stage of final hearing of claim petition and not at the stage of awarding interim compensation under Section 140 of the Act of 1988. At the time of granting interim compensation under Sec 140 of the Act of 1988 the prima facie satisfaction of the tribunal about the nature of injuries after perusal of injury reports of the injured claimant is sufficient. 13. Unity of purpose of Sections 140 and 142 of the Act of 1988 lies in achieving social harmony by way of giving immediate consolatory relief to the injured claimant through interim compensation of Rs. 12,500/- to meet the expenses of treatment etc. 13. Unity of purpose of Sections 140 and 142 of the Act of 1988 lies in achieving social harmony by way of giving immediate consolatory relief to the injured claimant through interim compensation of Rs. 12,500/- to meet the expenses of treatment etc. The conjoined reading of aforesaid two sections further indicate that these two sections of the Act of 1988 carry an element of humanism having considerable scope of discretion of the tribunal to grant interim compensation after looking into the injury report of the injured claimant and any other material on the record after hearing both the parties. 14. It must be remembered by all of us that it would be a sad day indeed if compulsions of equity and justice are sacrificed on the basis of technicalities as argued by the learned counsel for the appellant in the present case. It should be further remembered by all of us that he who clings to the letter clings to the dry and barren shell and misses a truth and substance of justice and fair play. In my humble opinion whenever and wherever there is choice before the Courts of law they are expected to choose to piss such order which accord with reasons and justice. In fact what is just and reasonable should always be treated to be lawful not otherwise. 15. In my considered opinion while interpreting Sections 140 and 142 of the Act of 1988 equity and fair play should always be a guide to the tribunal as a great Indian Rishi Brahaspati had aptly said : " dsoy 'kkL= vkfJR;a u drZO;ks fofu.;Z % ;qfDrghu fopkjsrq /keZ gkfu iztk;rsAA " That is to say the Court should not give its decision by merely following the letters of law, for, if the decision is wholly unreasonable injustice will follow. In my humble opinion the facts and circumstances of the present case leads towards an irresistable conclusion that the tribunal has rightly awarded the interim compensation to the claimant who has suffered numerous injuries including fracture and compound fracture.As a result of the aforementioned discussion the instant misc. appeal lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed in lit-nine.Appeal dismissed on merits. *******