JUDGMENT Heard. This appeal, under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, is against the rejection of the application under section 140 for interim compensation. Briefly stated the facts are that the appellants filed claim on the ground that an accident had occurred on 10.12.1995 with tempo bearing registration No. MP07/3026, driven by respondent No. 1 and owned by respondent No. 2, as a result of which, Raghuvirsingh Pal died and two persons, named Suresh and Rajesh sustained injuries. The report of the accident was recorded on the basis of Dehati-Nalishi given by one of the injured named Suresh in J.A. Group of Hospitals, to the Head Constable Govind Ram, who had gone on receiving information that due to accident one person died and two persons injured, with tempo. An offence under section 279, 337 and 304A of IPC was registered at Crime No. 810/95. The certified copy of the report is there on record. The police thereafter started investigation, prepared spot-map. The scooter was seized on 23.12.1995. Respondent No. 1 was arrested on 2.1.1996 in Crime No. 810/95, and the alleged tempo was also seized on that date in connection with Cri. No. 810/95, for offence under sections 279, 337 and 340A of IPC. The challen was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gwalior, which is pending for trial. The appellants-claimants filed a claim-petition against the respondents for compensation, before Eighth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior. Alongwith the Claim, copies of the Challan, FIR, Panchnama of Japti of tempo, Panchnama of arrest and the post-mortem report were also filed. An application under Sec. 140 of the M.V. Act for interim compensation was also filed. The Claims Tribunal by the impugned order rejected the application under Sec. 140 of the M.V. Act, on the ground that the number of the tempo has not been mentioned in the FIR and the tempo has been seized after about 23 days and basis for seizure of the tempo has not been disclosed, as such no case is made out for grant of no fault liability. Counsel for the appellants contended that the Claims Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the application under Sec. 140 of the Act, and the reasoning mentioned is not sustainable in law. Counsel for the appellants contended that the Claims Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the application under Sec. 140 of the Act, and the reasoning mentioned is not sustainable in law. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1991 SC 1769 (Shivaji Dayanu Patil & another v. Smt. Vatschala Uttam More), Clause-D, in which it was held that the object of section 92-A is to make available to the claimant a compensation amount and if Claims Tribunal directs to hold a regular trial in the same manner, as for adjudicating a Claim petition under Section 110-A of the M.V. Act, the object will be defeated. Counsel for the appellants further relied on a decision of this Court reported in 1991 (II) MPWN SN 102 (New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Ashadevi), in which it was held that where application for interim compensation is filed with challan-papers, FIR, post-mortem reports, in that case summary inquiry is not necessary, even if the accident itself is denied. Counsel further placed reliance on 1994 (I) MPWN 231D (Durga Prasad v. Mahila Ramsakhi) to contend that at the stage of interim compensation only position in terms of the statutory provisions to be seen is whether the owner of the offending vehicles is to be saddled prima facie tentatively liability of compensation Reference is also made to the decision reported in AIR 1992 MP 53 (United India Assurance Co. v. Sukhiyabai) in this connection. Shri M.P. Agrawal, Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, respondent No. 3, on the other hand, relied on 1995 ACJ 942 (Vidya Sagar Singh v. Shanti Devi & others). This case is not applicable to the present case, since in the instant case, it was Suresh injured-person, who had given a report to the Head Constable Govindram in the J.A. Hospital, which was recorded in the form of Dehati-Nalishi by the Head Constable, and treated as FIR. In the said report the injured Suresh stated specifically the "TEMPU KA NUMBER NOT KARA DIYA GAYA HAI". The police thereafter investigated the matter and the vehicle was seized on 2.1.96 and the respondent No. 1, driver of the offending vehicle was also arrested on that date in Crime No. 810/95 for the offence under section 279, 337 and 304A of IPC. The scooter was seized. The police thereafter investigated the matter and the vehicle was seized on 2.1.96 and the respondent No. 1, driver of the offending vehicle was also arrested on that date in Crime No. 810/95 for the offence under section 279, 337 and 304A of IPC. The scooter was seized. All these documents have been filed in this case in respect of the accident, which had taken place, but inspite of all this the claims Tribunal did not consider the aspect of the matter and flately rejected the application under Sec. 140. Having thus considered the facts and circumstances, and in view of the decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1991 SC 1769 (Shivaji Dayanu Patil & another v. Smt. Vatschala Uttam More) and the decision of this Court reported in 1991 (II) MPWN SN 102 (New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Ashadevi), in the opinion of this Court, the Claims Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the application on the grounds mentioned hereinabove. The order passed by the tribunal suffers from illegality. The same is set aside. In view of what has been stated above, the appeal is allowed with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 500/-.