FAKHRUDDIN, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988 against the order dated 11. 2. 1997 passed by 3rd Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Bhind in Claim Case No. 26 of 1996. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts are that an accident occurred on 13. 2. 1995 in which mangal Singh, husband of appellant No. 1 Prem Kumari and the father of appellant nos. 2 and 3 died. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by respondent No. 1 Rajbeer Singh, driver of the alleged tractor No. MP-OJ-6838. Respondent No. 2 is the owner of the said tractor. ( 3 ) THE claimants-appellants filed a claim before the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Bhind. They also filed an application under section 140 for no fault liability. The learned Claims Tribunal, though allowed the application and passed an interim award of Rs. 50,000, but that amount was not directed to be paid to the claimants and instead it has been directed to be deposited in the fixed deposit for ten years in the name of three appellants, in the nationalised bank with a further rider that none of the appellants will be permitted to take loan on the said amount; nor they will be permitted to withdraw the amount before the expiry of ten years. ( 4 ) NOTICE of the appeal was issued to the respondents and they have been served. But none appears to oppose. Mr. Mahesh haswani, Advocate, appointed as amicus curiae. ( 5 ) MR. Haswani, amicus curiae, contended that purpose of grant of no fault liability is to make available without delay interim compensation. The idea behind enacting the said provisions is to make prompt and immediate compensation available. Mr. Haswani contended that this court in Ramdei v. Nand Kumar, 1987 acj 764 (MP), categorically held that the statute has laid a duty on the Tribunal to address itself to the question of interim award and dispose of that question expeditiously. Even if the application is not made, the question has to be addressed and decision on that question has to be given. Mr. Haswani contended that in the case of amarjeet Kaur v. State of M. P. , 1988 (II)mpwn 85, this court has reiterated that the application for interim relief should be disposed of expeditiously in all cases ordinarily within a month. Mr. Haswani contended that in the case of amarjeet Kaur v. State of M. P. , 1988 (II)mpwn 85, this court has reiterated that the application for interim relief should be disposed of expeditiously in all cases ordinarily within a month. In Shamsher khan v. M. P. Electricity Board, 1988 ACJ 394 (MP), this court observed that:"the legislature has responded for the judicial concern adequately, enacting section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, for short 'the Act'. When any human being perishes in a motor accident, no matter how old he was, or what his station in life was, his legal representatives are to be paid at once a sum of Rs. 15,000 and not a paisa less than that. "mr. Haswani further contended that this court in Sarla Devi Chauhan v. Ram prasad, 1990 (II) MPWN 216, in which the Tribunal passed an interim award of rs. 15,000 as compensation payable under section 92-A (1) of the Act, in respect of death of the appellant's husband Vishwapratap Singh, but that amount was not made payable in full andinstead it was ordered that Rs. 7,500 shall be paid to the appellant and Rs. 7,500 shall be deposited with the bank in fixed deposit held that:"after hearing counsel, I do not feel it necessary to issue notices to the respondents as the Tribunal in its term, has passed the order under section 92-A to deposit the amount payable under section 92-A (1) and the Corporation would not in any manner be affected as it has already deposited the amount before the Tribunal for payment to the claimant. Hence, this revision is disposed of at the motion hearing stage without notice to the other side with a direction that as the petitioner is entitled to this amount of interim award on no fault basis, and the amount is to be paid to the L. Rs. of the deceased, who has died in a motor accident, the amount ought to have been ordered to be paid in full, so that the claimant may get an immediate interim relief. Under section 92-A (2) of the Motor vehicles Act, no power is vested with the Tribunal to give any other direction certainly, if, minor would have been there, the position would have been different. In the circumstances, the impugned order of the learned Tribunal, so far it relates to deposit of Rs. Under section 92-A (2) of the Motor vehicles Act, no power is vested with the Tribunal to give any other direction certainly, if, minor would have been there, the position would have been different. In the circumstances, the impugned order of the learned Tribunal, so far it relates to deposit of Rs. 7,500 with the bank, is set aside and it is ordered that the claimant is entitled to receive the whole amount of the interim award, i. e. , rs. 15,000. " ( 6 ) ON perusal of the record, it is borne out that the accident had occurred on 13. 2. 1995 and the claim was filed on 14. 8. 1995 against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , through Branch Manager, Branch Office, b Block, Shastri Nagar, Gwalior, was joined as a party on 18. 1. 1996. The application under section 140 was filed on 5. 9. 1995. The notice was directed to be issued to the other side. On 16. 7. 96 Member, Claims Tribunal/district Judge, Bhind transferred the case to the Third Motor accidents Claims Tribunal. The issues were framed on 17. 9. 1996. On this date, it was specifically noted later on that the application under section 140 is pending and for the arguments the case was adjourned to 21. 9. 96. On 21. 9. 1996, 28. 9. 96, 5. 10. 1996 and 7. 10. 1996 arguments were heard and the case was fixed for orders on 14. 10. 1996. On 14. 10. 1996 orders could not be passed and on 24. 10. 1996 and 30. 10. 1996 the Presiding Officer was on leave. On 7. 11. 1996, the court noted that the case was fixed for orders and therefore fixed the case for 23. 11. 1996 for orders. On 23. 11. 1996 the case was adjourned to 27. 11. 1996 as the court was busy in other case. It was on 27. 11. 1996 that the interim award was passed directing the respondents to deposit Rs. 50,000 in the court within one month, failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. It is pointed out that on 6. 1. 1997 the insurance company deposited a cheque No. C. A/rpr 0538596, drawn against Bank of India, Phool Bag Shakha, for an amount of Rs. 50,000. 50,000 in the court within one month, failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. It is pointed out that on 6. 1. 1997 the insurance company deposited a cheque No. C. A/rpr 0538596, drawn against Bank of India, Phool Bag Shakha, for an amount of Rs. 50,000. The court noted in the order-sheet dated 6. 1. 1997 and forwarded the same to the District nazir for collection. On 11. 2. 97, the claimants made an application that the amount of compensation deposited be allowed to be withdrawn. On that application the claims Tribunal had passed the impugned order on 11. 2. 1997 directing the amount to be deposited in fixed deposit for ten years in the name of all the three appellants with nationalised bank with further direction that the appellants will not be permitted to take the loan on the said amount nor they will be allowed to withdraw the amount before expiry of ten years. Copy of the order along with voucher was directed to be forwarded to the District Nazir. District nazir then submitted the report that the cheque for an amount of Rs. 50,000 was deposited by the insurance company and sent for collection and after deducting the commission towards collection a sum of rs. 49,815 is deposited as per the direction. ( 7 ) MR. Haswani, learned counsel contended that deposit of Rs. 50,000 has not been made as per the order of the Claims tribunal dated 27. 12. 96 within the stipulated time. He contended that the deposit made by the cheque dated 31. 12. 1996 for an amount of Rs. 50,000, drawn against the Bank of India, Phool Baag Shakha, gwalior does not fulfil the requirements. So far as this aspect of the matter is concerned in the opinion of this court, such stand has not been taken before the Claims tribunal and the Claims Tribunal also did not apply its mind to this aspect. The claims Tribunal shall now look into this aspect of the case as to whether the order passed by it on 27. 11. 1996 has been complied with or not and if something more is to be done, it will be done, after hearing the parties. ( 8 ) SO far as the directions by the impugned order dated 11. . 2. 11. 1996 has been complied with or not and if something more is to be done, it will be done, after hearing the parties. ( 8 ) SO far as the directions by the impugned order dated 11. . 2. 1997 to deposit the entire amount of no fault liability in fixed deposit that too with such conditions as stated hereinabove frustrates the very purpose for which the provision has been enacted. The Tribunal has to adopt reasonable and benevolent procedure in trying claim cases. If no fault liability amount is not directed to be paid immediately, the salutary provision would become a dead letter. ( 9 ) IN that view of the matter, the order passed by the Tribunal dated 11. 2. 1997 is patently illegal and deserves to be set aside. It is set aside accordingly. It is directed that the amount of interim compensation shall be paid to the claimants-appellants forthwith. Appeal is allowed. ( 10 ) BEFORE parting, this court appreciates the valuable assistance rendered by mr. Mahesh Haswani, learned counsel, who appeared as amicus curiae. ( 11 ) THE record of the Claims Tribunal be sent back along with the copy of the order passed by this court to the Claims tribunal through District Judge, Bhind. ( 12 ) CERTIFIED copy to the parties and typed copy to the amicus curiae. Appeal allowed. .