Vijender Jain ( 1 ) AGGRIEVED by the order passed by the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal (M. A. C. T.), the petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in spite of the fact that this court in Mohram Ali v. Rakesh kapoor, Judge, M. A. C. T. , Delhi, 1998 acj 1043 (Delhi), has held that concept of no fault liability shows that the Tribunal is expected to hold summary inquiry and thereafter award the interim compensation immediately, interim compensation has been ordered to be kept in fixed deposit for two years. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of this court on the order dated 17/3/99 passed by the M. A. C. T. itself wherein it was held that the factum of the accident causing death of the deceased having been admitted by the respondent and there being no dispute with regard to L. Rs. of the deceased, there was no reason for the respondent to direct interim compensation to be deposited in fixed deposit for two years and one year. ( 2 ) I fully agree with the ratio laid down in Mohram Ali s case, 1998 ACJ 1043 (Delhi), that for the purposes of payment of interim compensation the practice of the tribunal is contrary to the object for which the provision for interim compensation has been made in the Act. I set aside the order of the Tribunal and hold that the Tribunal will take note of Mohram All s case (supra) as that judgment was passed in a case where the order was made by the same tribunal so as not to repeat the same mistake. Petition is allowed. Petition allowed