JUDGMENT 1. - The appellants have filed this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order dated 9.9.1997 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pratapgarh whereby the learned Judge has awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as interim compensation under section 140 of the Act to the respondents from the dependents of deceased Raya. 2. On 31.1.1995 deceased Raya was sitting in a trolly attached with the Tractor No. RJ/09-1187 which was being driven by Ratanlal. Jeetmal is the owner of the Tractor and Jagirlal is the owner of the trolly. It is alleged that the driver namely, Shree Ratanlal drove the truck rashly and negligently as a result of which the trolly overturned and Raya who was sitting inside the trolly was crushed to death. A first information report of this occurrence was lodged at Police Station Dhola Pani. The police registered a case under sections 279, 304-A, 337 & 338 IPC under FIR No. 13/95. The respondents also filed a claim under section 160 of the Act against the appellants and made a claim of Rs. 6,40,000/ -. It was not known whether the above Tractor and trolly were insured with any Insurance Company or not. The claimants, therefore, could not made any statement regarding insurance of the above vehicle. In reply, the driver denied all the allegations. Similarly, the other appellants also denied the claim on the ground that no such accident ever occurred. It was alleged that Raya was proceeding on foot but when he saw the trolly, he after it and tried to climb the said trolly and in the process fell down and died. The deceased was, therefore, responsible for his own undoing. 3. When the learned Judge took up the matter on granting no fault liability under section 140 of the Act, the appellants resisted the same on the ground that a compromise has been arrived at between them and the claimants whereunder Chokha executed a compromise in favour of the appellants in which it was stated that since both the parties hail from the same village and want to keep their relations cordial, Chokha executed the above document. It is important to said that in the compromise-deed, Chokha has stated to have received money from the appellants and nothing remained due from them. It is important to said that in the compromise-deed, Chokha has stated to have received money from the appellants and nothing remained due from them. There is a thumb impression of Chokha on the compromise-deed. The learned Judge did not rely on the compromise-deed because in this document it has not been specified what amount has been paid by the appellants to Chokha to satisfy him in respect of the liability of the former for no fault compensation. He, therefore, passed an interim award of Rs. 50,000 /- in favour of the respondents and against the appellants and ordered that the same may be paid within a period of two months. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants who has very vehemently assailed the impugned order on the ground that the appellants produced the compromise-deed executed by Chokha in their favour in which it was clearly stated that Chokha had received compensation money and that he did not like to prosecute the matter further. After total satisfaction of the liability in respect of interim compensation, the appellants could not have been saddled again with the same liability by the learned Judge. It appears that the learned Judge brushed asided the above document simply on the ground that the above document does not contain the amount of compensation which was paid by the appellants to respondent Chokha. However, on this ground alone, the document could not have been thrown out. The question is whether the appellants have satisfied the respondent in respect of a liability arising under the accident or not ? This document is a complete answer to.the above query. By accepting appropriate amount which the respondent did not like to disclose, the respondent has waived his right to claim any compensation in respect of the above accident. He, therefore, submitted that the above order be set aside and the application under section 140 of the Act be dismissed. 5. I have considered the submissions and have also perused the document produced by the learned counsel for the appellant. It may be stated that the so called compromise-deed contains the thumb impression of Chokha. It has been attested by the Notary Public. However, for accepting the fact that the claimants made a compromise with the appellant after receiving compensation, the proof of this document is required. It may be stated that the so called compromise-deed contains the thumb impression of Chokha. It has been attested by the Notary Public. However, for accepting the fact that the claimants made a compromise with the appellant after receiving compensation, the proof of this document is required. In other words, for judging the probative value of this compromise-deed, a detailed inquiry during trial will be necessary. The no fault liability is awarded to the victim when two facts are proved namely, that there was a death or permanent disablement of the person and it must have resulted from an accident arising out of the use of a Motor Vehicle. Both these conditions stand fulfilled here. It may be stated that under sub-sec. (3) of Section 140 of the Act in any claim for compensation under sub-sec. (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead and establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act, the neglect of the owners of the vehicle concerned. Sub-section (3) gives a clear indication of the intention of the legislature. The legislature wants that the amount envisaged under section 140 of the Act must be paid to the victim as soon as the above two conditions are satisfied. No inquiry at this stage even with regard to the negligence which contributed in accident is warranted. The idea is that a blanket liability is caused on the owner and he has been made answerable when accident occurs resulting in death or permanent disablement of the victim involving the use of his motor vehicle. In the instant case the appellants wanted to challenge the liability under section 140 of the Act on the ground that the above compromise-deed has been executed by Chokha. I have already stated that this fact cannot be adjudicated without making an inquiry which may required by him. Section 140 of the Act makes a departure in obviating detailed inquiry at the stage of awarding no fault liability. 6. For the above reasons, I am of opinion that the learned Judge has not committed any illegality or irregularity in awarding the amount of no fault liability. Section 140 of the Act makes a departure in obviating detailed inquiry at the stage of awarding no fault liability. 6. For the above reasons, I am of opinion that the learned Judge has not committed any illegality or irregularity in awarding the amount of no fault liability. I, however, would like to make it clear that during the trial of the claim petition, necessary inquiry be made regarding the compromise-deed and if it is proved that Chokha executed the above deed, for legal consideration the fact may be taken into consideration while computing final liability of the appellant.With these observations, I dismiss the appealAppeal Dismissed. *******