A. M. SAPRE, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is by the claimant against an order whereby her application for claiming interim compensation under section 140 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 is rejected by the learned member of the Tribunal on the ground that the permanent disability having not been proved as yet, in the absence of any material, no interim compensation can be awarded. It is observed that the same will be decided only after the entire evidence is recorded on merits. And hence appeal. ( 2 ) IN an accident occurred, the appellant has sustained the compound-comminuted fracture of metatarsal bone. This led to filing of claim petition claiming compensation for the loss. An application for claiming interim compensation as per provisions of section 140 ibid was also made. In support of the application appellant-claimant filed 2 certificates of doctor certifying that the appellant has suffered:"according to ALIMCO she is having total permanent physical impairment of 24 (twenty-four) per cent of the left foot. "on the strength of the aforementioned certificates, appellant claimed an interim compensation of Rs. 25,000 in terms of section 140 (2) of the Act on the principle of no fault liability and by contending that the injury has resulted in permanent disability. This application has been rejected. ( 3 ) HEARD Mr. Manish Jain, the learned counsel for the appellant (claimant) and mr. P. K. Gupta, learned counsel for insurance company, respondent No. 2, finally. ( 4 ) RELYING upon the decisions of this court in Saurabh Kumar Shukla v. Hukum chand, 1998 ACJ 523 (MP); Ashok v. Ashok Singh, 1996 ACJ 392 (MP) and rajan v. Madhya Pradesh State Road trans. Corpn. y M. A. No. 420 of 1998; decided on 14. 5. 99, learned counsel for the appellant urged that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. He submitted that appellant had laid primafacie evidence as held in the aforesaid 2 cases of Rajan and ashok (supra) that certificate of medical practitioner certifying the disability factor is sufficient to award interim compensation. In reply, the submission of learned counsel for respondent No, 2 was for upholding of the award as, according to him, the learned Tribunal was right in holding that there was no evidence and, secondly, the same will be gone into at the time of evidence on merits. In reply, the submission of learned counsel for respondent No, 2 was for upholding of the award as, according to him, the learned Tribunal was right in holding that there was no evidence and, secondly, the same will be gone into at the time of evidence on merits. ( 5 ) IN my opinion, after hearing the parties and perusing the ratio of decisions cited at the Bar, I am inclined to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned award rejecting the application made by the appellant. This court in aforementioned case has taken the medical certificate to be in the form of prima facie evidence to grant interim compensation as required under section 140 (2) ibid. There is, therefore, no reason for me to depart from the view already taken by the court in earlier cases. Perusal of certificate filed by the appellant in the present case also do indicate at least prima facie that the appellant has suffered permanent disability of her left foot to the extent of 24 per cent. Looking to the object underlying in enacting section 140 and the manner in which it was liberally put to interpretation by the courts in awarding interim compensation, in my opinion, the appellant was entitled to the benefit of section 140 (2) of the Act by granting an interim compensation of Rs. 25,000 for the injuries. Needless to observe, the award of the interim compensation would depend upon the final outcome of the case when it is tried on its merit. ( 6 ) ACCORDINGLY, I allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and award an interim compensation of Rs. 25,000 to be paid jointly and severally by the respondents. This will be subject to final disposal of claim petition. Appeal allowed. .