This revision is directed against the interim Award dated 16.2.99 passed by the learned Tribunal in MAC No. 6 of 1999. By the aforesaid order learned Tribunal granted interim relief of Rs.25,000 (Rs twenty five thousand) in favour of the claimant/respondent purportedly under section 140 of MV Act. 2. I have heard Mr. M. Khro, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as Mr. Luikham, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants. 3. The main ground of the revision is that, injuries sustained by the claimant was not arising out of motor vehicle accident that took place on 31.1.98, and therefore, he is not entitled to receive no fault liability under Section 140 of the Act. 4. There is no dispute that the Bus bearing registration No. NL Ol/B-0397 where the claimant was working as khelasi had met with an accident on 31.1.98. A police certificate dated 1.2.98 annexed as Annexure-3 in this revision petition shows that the claimant had reported to him that the Bus met with an accident on 31.1.98 at Muznai Bridge, near Falakata. The certificate also shows that the claimant shows sustaining minor injury on his bodies at the time of the report. Discharge certificate dated 7.3.98 from Florence Medical cum Diagnostic Centre (P) Ltd at Siliguri shows that the claimant was admitted on 14.2.98 with compound fracture of left leg, and he was discharged on 7.3.98. Revisionist also annexed another discharged slip from one John Mukhopadhyaya, a Doctor at Patna, Annexure 5 showing the date of injury as on 13.2.98 and date of admission on 8.6.98 and discharged on 29.6.98. In the discharged slip the injuries has been prescribed as the case of fracture inflicted loose IM Nail. From the discharge slip certificate of Annexures-4 and 5 and police report (Annexure 3), it clearly appears that the claimant was admitted on 13.2.98 and 14.2.98 respectively for treatment of compound fracture of left leg. It is highly unbelievable that in ordinary circumstances a person who has sustained injury of compound fracture on left leg on 31.1.98 would wait till 13.2.98 and 14.2.98 for treatment. At the same time the claimant also reported the incident to police and obtained certificate showing that he sustained minor injuries on his body in the accident that took place on 31.1.98. How the claimant went to the police to report the accident with fractured leg was not explained. At the same time the claimant also reported the incident to police and obtained certificate showing that he sustained minor injuries on his body in the accident that took place on 31.1.98. How the claimant went to the police to report the accident with fractured leg was not explained. A copy of the FIR produced at the time of hearing would show that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver and he was absconding. The name of the claimant does not appear in the list of passengers who sustained bodily injuries. Therefore, the case of the claimant that he has sustained compound left leg fractured injury in the accident that took place on 31.1.98 is highly unbelievable. 5. It is however contended by Mr. Luikham that the claimant was attending local copies for treatment and after it has proved futile he went for admission at Florence Medical cum Diagnostic Centre at Siliguri and thereafter he went for sub-sequent treatment at Patna. This statement is belied by the documents of Annexures-4 and 5. The document at Annexure 4 shows that the claimant was admitted on 14.2.98 with compound fractured left leg and discharged on 7.3.98 from Siliguri local clinic. The documents at Annexure 5 shows that the Doctor at Patna has certified the date of injury as on 13.2.98 and the date of admission on 8.6.98 and discharged on 29.6.98. From both the documents of Annexures-4 and 5, it clearly appears that the date of injury sustained by the claimant appears to have taken place on 13.2.98. If that is so, the alleged compound fractured of left leg is not arising out of motor vehicle accident that took place on 31.1.98 but the injuries sustained by the claimant appears to have been taken place on 13.2.98 as noted by the Doctor at Patna. 6. No fault liability as provided under section 140 of MV Act can only arise when the injuries sustained by the claimant has resulted from an accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle for which the claimant has filed the petition for compensation. In the instant case, as already said that the accident had taken place on 31.1.98 and the injuries sustained by the claimant appears to have been taken place on 13.2.98 subsequent to the accident for which the claimant has filed petition claiming compensation. In the instant case, as already said that the accident had taken place on 31.1.98 and the injuries sustained by the claimant appears to have been taken place on 13.2.98 subsequent to the accident for which the claimant has filed petition claiming compensation. In such a case, the provision of section 140 of the Act would not be available as the injury sustained by the claimant has not resulted from an accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle. 7. In the result, the interim order dated 16.2.99 passed by the learned Tribunal in MAC Case No. 6 of 1999 is hereby quashed and set aside. With the aforesaid direction this revision petition is allowed. Send back the records forthwith. The revisionist is allowed to take back the amount deposited.