Honble JAIN, J. – The short question that arises for determination in this appeal is whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal can award a sum of Rs. 25,000/.- under Sec.140(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 in case of a death of a person arising out of the use of the motor vehicle which was insured with the insurance company assuming that the deceased driver was himself negligent and author of the accident resulting in his death ? (2) By the impugned order, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ratangarh awarded compensation of Rs.50.000/- in favour of the claimants and against non-petitioners 1 & 2 in respect of the accident which occurred on 17/8/94 and the vehicle involved was Jeep No. RRF 3215. It is alleged that deceased driver Mohd. Ali was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently which resulted in the above unfortunate accident. He died as a result of the above accident. (3) According to the learned counsel for the appellant, in the instant case, the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent act of the deceased himself who was driving the above vehicle at the relevant time. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal committed a grave error in awarding the above interim compensation without examining the fact whether in a case the deceased himself exclusively contributed to his death can get interim award under the provisions of Sec.140 of the Act. When the victim is himself negligent and his negligence to other party cannot be contributed, interim compensation cannot be awarded. This view was taken by the High Court of Madras in K.Nand Kumar vs. M.D. Thanthai Periyer (1) and in Mallika vs. S.V. Alagarsami (2). Learned counsel further submitted that under sub-Sec. (2) of Sec.140 of the Act, only a sum of Rs. 25,000/- can be awarded but the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- which must be deduced. (4) Learned counsel for the respondent has supported the order of the Tribu- nal on the ground that the provisions of Sec.140 of the Act are founded on the concept of no fault liability. The provisions of Sec. 140 have been enacted for the purpose providing immediate relief to the claiments.For this purpose, the Tribunal is not bothered about the concept of fault. The provisions of Sec. 140 have been enacted for the purpose providing immediate relief to the claiments.For this purpose, the Tribunal is not bothered about the concept of fault. He has submitted that the Honble Supreme Court in K.Nand Kumar vs. M.D. Thanthai Periyar Transport Corporation (3) dealt with the concept of no fault liability while examining the provisions of Sec.140 of the Act and held that the question of liability is not to be examined while awarding the interim compensation. This Court in United Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Deroaj and others(4) has held that the Court has to look whether the accident is occurred and the vehicle involved was insured or not. (5) I have considered the above arguments carefully. Provisions of Sec.140 of the Act have been enacted for the purpose of providing succour or immediate relief to the claimants with out ascertaining or adjudicating the question of fault. This principle is based on the concept of social justice by giving compensation without proof to the representatives of the victim. As such it is a beneficial piece of legislation for providing effective relief to a victim of Motor accident. In K.Nandkumar vs. M.D. Thanthai Periyar Transport Corporation (supra), the Honble Supreme Court examined the provisions of Sec.92 of the old Act and observed :- ``By reason of sub-section (1) of Section 92-A , an absolute liability is cast upon the owner of a vehicle to pay compensation in respect of death or permanent disablement resulting from an accident arising out of its use. By reason of sub-section (3), the claimant is not required to plead or establish that the death or disablement was due to a wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner or any other person. Sub-section (4) is in two parts.The first part states that a claim for compensation under the Section is not defeated by reason of any wrongful act, neglect or default of the person who had died or suffered permanent disablement. The second part states that the quantam of compensation is not to be diminished even if the person who had died or suffered permanent disablement bore some responsibility for his death or disablement. The second part states that the quantam of compensation is not to be diminished even if the person who had died or suffered permanent disablement bore some responsibility for his death or disablement. There was therefore, on a plain reading of Section 92-A, particularly, the first part of sub-section (4) there of, no basis for holding that a claim thereunder could be made only if the person who had died or suffered permanent disablement had not been negligent. The provision being clear, no external aid to its construction, such as the Statement of Objects and Reasons, was called for . (6) It has, therefore,finally adjudicated by the highest court, that the interim award under sec.140 of the Act can be awarded without examining the point of fault either of the victim or the other party. In this context, the decision of the Madras High Court in K.Nand Kumars case was reversed. (7) For the above reasons, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.