SANGALAD, J. ( 1 ) THE appellants have challenged the judgment and award dated 23. 11. 1996 passed in MVC No. 1183 of 1991 granting a total compensation of rs. 1,55,226. 55 to the respondents for the death of one Ganesha Sheregara who was a passenger in K. S. R. T. C. bus bearing No. KA-01-F-12 bound from Udupi towards bangalore. ( 2 ) WHEN the said bus was proceeding after Katapady, a lorry bearing registration no. CTW 5451 came from the opposite direction and dashed against the hind portion of the bus wherein the deceased, on account of the impact, sustained grievous injuries such as head injury, severe and grievous multiple injuries and fractures as mentioned in column 11 of the petition. Subsequently, the injured passenger was shifted to the hospital for medical aid and as such while he was taking treatment succumbed to the injuries on 15. 9. 91. Hence the petition was filed by the respondents and has been decided by the M. A. C. T. , udupi. ( 3 ) FOR the respondents, PWs 1 and 2 are examined and Exhs. P1 to P13 are marked. For the appellants, only one witness is examined, namely, DW 1 and one document Exh. D1 is marked. The Tribunal ultimately held that it was on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry the accident took place and further relied upon the evidence of PW 1. The total compensation awarded by the tribunal is as follows: ( 4 ) HEARD Mr. Yoganarasimha, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. S. S. Sripathy, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. Dabali, learned counsel for respondent No. 4. The argument of Mr. Yoganarasimha, learned counsel for the appellants, is two fold: (1) That the compensation awarded is on the higher side; (2) That the compensation awarded under no fault liability is no fault liability and under any circumstance, if the owner of any other vehicle had already shared no fault liability, the appellant No. 1 cannot now be directed to refund that amount. ( 5 ) AS far as dependency is concerned, there is no dispute. The Tribunal found that the deceased was able to contribute rs. 650 towards the respondents. So for one year, it comes to Rs. 7,800. The next question that crops up is the multiplier. ( 5 ) AS far as dependency is concerned, there is no dispute. The Tribunal found that the deceased was able to contribute rs. 650 towards the respondents. So for one year, it comes to Rs. 7,800. The next question that crops up is the multiplier. The respondent No. 1 is the mother. The respondent No. 2 is the brother and respondent No. 3 is the sister of the deceased. Since the mother was 51 years old and since the deceased was unmarried, the multiplier that could be applied is only 12. Hence the loss of dependency comes to rs. 93,000. ( 6 ) IT is also in the evidence that the deceased succumbed to the injuries later on. The treatment was given in Manipal hospital which is admittedly a private hospital. Naturally, the respondents must have spent some amount towards medical expenses. Taking into consideration all these aspects, I am inclined to award the following compensation: ( 7 ) THE main contention of Mr. Yoganarasimha, the learned counsel for the appellants is that on no fault liability, the k. S. R. T. C. has also to be made liable to pay the sum of Rs. 12,500. As such, the k. S. R. T. C. should be estopped from contending that it should get back its money contributed under no fault liability. ( 8 ) IT is pertinent to note that the benefit of section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter shall be referred as 'the Act') is to facilitate the claimants to get some amount quickly pending disposal of the main petition. In other words the intro duction of this no fault liability is to help the bereaved family to get some quick payment. But at the time of the disposal of the application under section 140, it is not possible for the Tribunal to make a detailed enquiry as to the negligence and the liability in case of more than one vehicle being involved. Pending finding on the point of negligence and liability, the Tribunal for the sake of convenience, has passed the order calling upon both the owners to share the liability. But this does not mean that the owner of the vehicle who is not finally liable to pay the compensation, should forego this amount because he has followed the mandate of the Tribunal by his contribution towards no fault liability. But this does not mean that the owner of the vehicle who is not finally liable to pay the compensation, should forego this amount because he has followed the mandate of the Tribunal by his contribution towards no fault liability. ( 9 ) THE contention of Mr. Yoganarasimha, learned counsel for the appellants is that no fault liability is no fault liability. Ultimately, whether the owner of other vehicle held liable or not, he is bound to pay his contribution under no fault liability. Under any circumstances, he is not liable to get it back because the concept of no fault liability under section 140 of the act cannot be diluted under any circumstances. On the face of it, this proposition appears to be lucrative and appealing, but when it is examined in depth, this cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the person who is not the tortfeasor cannot be made liable to pay the compensation. Mr. Sripathy relied upon a decision in the case of Thomas v. Mathew, 1995 ACJ 1243 (Kerala), wherein it is held as follows:"motor Vehicles Act, 1988, section 140 No fault liability Collision between a motor cycle and car coming from opposite directions and the motorcyclist sustained injuries C1aim by motor-cyclist and the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the claimant motor-cyclist himself In appeal by the claimant, the finding of negligence was upheld and the claimant then adopted the alternate contention of claim under no fault liability Whether a claimant who himself is equally answerable to no fault liability along with another vehicle owner, can realise compensation from the owner of the other vehicle Held: no; statute has fixed the liability of the two owners as joint and several and liability is to third parties and not against each other. " ( 10 ) WE have reached the interesting situation. In the instant case, there are two vehicles. If there is only one vehicle involved in the accident, what has to happen to the insurer if ultimately the tribunal holds that the accident was not on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle. Under such circumstances, the claimant has to be satisfied with the compensation that can be given under section 140 of the Act only. Under such circumstances, the claimant has to be satisfied with the compensation that can be given under section 140 of the Act only. Suppose if such an accident has happened on account of composite negligence, then under such circumstances, the owners of the vehicles have to share the amount equally. But in the event the petition is dismissed, all the owners have to pay and wash of their hands. These are very interesting situations that can be arrived at when finally the Tribunal dismisses the petition for want of proof of negligence. But when the tribunal holds that a particular person is liable to pay the compensation as in the present case, it is difficult to call upon the owner of other vehicle who is not responsible for causing of the accident to restrain him from asking back the contribution amount paid under no fault liability. At the cost of the repetition, it has to be stated that importance of no fault liability is to enable the claimant/s to get some interim compensation quickly. This section is enacted in order to help the bereaved family at the earliest possible opportunity. Finally, the duty is cast upon the Tribunal to find out the liability. The responsibility of the Tribunal is more when more than one vehicle is involved in the accident. The Tribunal also has to pass succinct order to refund the amount to the owner of the vehicle who is not responsible ultimately paid under no fault liability. It is one and the same whether the Tribunal makes an order to refund to the owner of another vehicle who is not liable or if the Tribunal directs ultimately the owner of the responsible vehicle to pay this sum contributed under no fault liability. In the instant case, it is held that the appellants are liable jointly and severally to pay the compensation of rs. 1,10,000. The appellants have already paid a sum of Rs. 12,500, so the remaining balance has to be deposited in the court with interest and costs. Out of this amount, a sum of Rs. 12,500 shall be refunded to respondent No. 4. In the light of these observations the following order is passed: in the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the compensation is reduced from rs. 1,55,226. 55 to Rs. Out of this amount, a sum of Rs. 12,500 shall be refunded to respondent No. 4. In the light of these observations the following order is passed: in the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the compensation is reduced from rs. 1,55,226. 55 to Rs. 1,10,000; The amount deposited here shall be transferred to M. A. C. T. , Udupi. The appellants are directed to deposit the remaining balance within two weeks. Appeal partly allowed. --- *** --- .