Judgment P.K.SINHA, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by Patna Municipal Corporation through its Administrator which impugns order dated 15.5.99 recorded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District and Sessions Judge VII, Patna) in Claim Case No. 124 of 1997 by which, under the provision of sec. 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , Patna Municipal Corporation has been directed to pay interim compensation of Rs. 50,000 to the claimants. 2. Learned counsel for the claimants/ respondent Nos. 1 to 5, 6 and 7 are present and with their consent, this appeal is being disposed of at this stage. It was submitted that the other two respondents did not ap pear even in the lower court. 3. The facts in short are that on 27.5.98 respondent No. 6, Central Coal Field Limited, which was the owner of offending vehicle, had filed an application that Mahesh Choudhary, a hawker had died in accident on 27.7.97 in the town of Patna. The aforesaid vehicle was earlier seized by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Ramgarh, Hazari bagh and was sent to the Patna Municipal Corporation at Patna with driver for clearing waterlogging in the town of Patna for which orders were passed by this court. It was claimed that on the date of accident, the vehicle was under control of opposite party Nos. 3 and 5, the driver and the Patna Municipal Corporation. 4. The case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. has not been disputed by any party that this vehicle was not insured with that company, hence the company had no liability in this matter. 5. The owner of the vehicle in the Tribunal also produced certificate of seizure of the vehicle for sending the same to Patnafor the aforesaid purpose which fact is not disputed. The driver of the vehicle was directed to report to the Commissioner, Patna Division. The appellant, Patna Municipal Corporation also appeared before the Tribunal and filed a rejoinder submitting there that the Corporation was not liable to pay any interim compensation, further stating that in the year 1997, as per order of the Patna High Court to remove waterlogging from Patna town, the tripper trucks and some other vehicles were brought to Patna, which was done by the District Control Room at Patna and the Divisional Commissioner, Patna. The appellant has claimed that the vehicle in question was under their control. 6. The appellant has claimed that the vehicle in question was under their control. 6. In course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that virtually, the vehicle was in the exclusive control of the District Control Room and the Executive Officers hence the Corporation, which was not exercising control over the vehicle, was not responsible to pay any compensation much less interim compensation. 7. The learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the claimants had no concern as to which party would pay them the compensation but they were interested in early payment of the compensation amount. However, the learned counsel argued in support of the order appealed against. 8. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 6 has submitted that in a decision of a Division Bench of the High Court in Basudeo Besra V/s. Union of India, 1996 (1) PLJR 261 , it has been held that a vehicle when requisitioned, goes out of the control of the owner, and it is controlled by the requisitioning authority. 9. Learned counsel also submitted that the Assistant Administrator of the Patna Municipal Corporation had written a letter No. 183 dated 27.7.97 to the Project Officer of the Sonhadih Colliery at Hazaribagh to which colliery the vehicle in question belonged certifying that the driver concerned had worked at Patna from 22.7.97 to 27.7.1997. The accident had taken place on 27.7.1997. However, this document has not been filed, but the letter was shown which was not contradicted by the learned counsel for the appellant. 10. On being asked, learned counsel for the appellant admitted that the order for clearance of waterlogging was passed by this court in C.W.J.C. No. 6192 of 1997 in which along with State officials, Patna Municipal Corporation was also a party and direction was also given to the Patna Municipal Corporation. Learned counsel on being asked also admitted that removal of waterlogging, as also garbage within the municipal limits was the responsibility of the Municipality. 11. In view of the aforesaid circumstance, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned Tribunal. 12. This appeal, therefore, stands dismissed.Appeal dismissed.