Honble GUPTA, J. – These 11 appeals have been directed against the interim award passed under Sec. 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Bikaner on 7.3.91. The Tribunal directed the RSRTC and Rao Tula Rastriya Unnati Uach Madh. Vidhyalaya ( the owners of the two vehicles involved in the accident) to make payment in the ratio of 30 :70. (2). It is not necessary to mention the facts of the case in detail. Suffice it to say, the accident took place on 4.10.89. The students of the appellant Vidhyalaya were going in picnic in Matador No. RSF 5373 driven by Fazlu. The Matador collided with bus No. RNP 3177 belonging to RSRTC. Many students sustained injuries and some of them died. On filing the claim petitions, the Tribunal passed the interim award. (3). I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. (4). Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Tri- bunal in passing the interim award was not justified in fixing the liability of the owner of matador at 70% and the amount could have been made payable jointly and severally. He further submits that since the payment has been made as per interim award, this Court may dispose of these appeals observing that the Tribunal shall not be guided while passing final award by the ratio of liability fixed in the interim award. Mr. Changani & Mr. Bhati, learned counsel for the respondents RSRTC concede that the apportionment of the liability was not required to be done in the matter of interim award. (5). Interim award on the principle of `No fault liability is passed under Sec. 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It has to be accepted that while passing the order under Sec. 140, the Tribunal is not required to consider the proportionate liability of the vehicles involved in the accident. Ofcourse where the factum of accident is denied, the Tribunal may be inclined and rather do well to hold a summary inquiry in order to form an opinion as to whether the accident did take place and whether the vehicle in question was involved in the accident or not. Ofcourse where the factum of accident is denied, the Tribunal may be inclined and rather do well to hold a summary inquiry in order to form an opinion as to whether the accident did take place and whether the vehicle in question was involved in the accident or not. Once it is found that vehicle or the vehicles were involved in the accident, the Tribunal is obliged to pass interim award under the principle of `No fault liability. The very concept of `No fault liability is that the amount is payable not because there was fault on the part of driver of the vehicle, but because the vehicle was involved in the accident. That being so, in the case where two or more vehicles are involved in the accident, the Tribunal is not required to consider at the stage of passing the order under Sec. 140 of the Act as to driver of which vehicle was more responsible and what could be the liability of the driver of each vehicle. In such cases, the liability of the owners of all the vehicles involved in the accident and of course of the Insurance Company, if the vehicles were insured, should be made joint and several. (6). Be that as it may, the Tribunal passed the interim award fixing the percentage of liability. It has been informed that payments have already been made. It is made clear that the Tribunal while passing the final award shall not be guided by the observations made in the order dated 7.3.91 regarding the apportionment of liability. It is to be seen independent of these observations as to whether drivers of both the vehicles were responsible for the accident and if it was the case of contributory negligence, what should be percentage of liability of the owner/Insurance of each vehicle. With these observations, the appeals are disposed of.