Honble KESHOTE, J.–The New India Assurance Company Ltd. through its Assistant Manager, Jaipur Regional Office, Jaipur by this petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution is praying for quashing and setting aside of the order cum award dated 26.5.2001 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shahpura in claim petition No. 179/2001 Smt. Baljinder Kaur & others vs. Katraia Carriers and others. (2). This order cum award is on the record of this petition as Annexure-3. Under this impugned order cum award under Sec. 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shahpura has awarded Rs. 50,000/- as an interim compensation to the claimants. Out of this awarded amount, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shahpura has ordered for investment of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- is disbursed in favour of the claimants. (3). At the outset it is to be stated that this approach of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shahpura to disburse 50% of amount of the interim award in favour of the claimants is not justified. The principle which is to be adopted while passing the order for disbursement of the finally awarded amount of the compensation to be applied in a matter of disbursement and investment of the amount of interim award. The claima-nts are dependents of late Jogendra Singh who was a driver. He was of the age of 27 years and naturally we can visualise and understand the age of the widow and minor daughter. The two other persons/claimants are the father and mother of deceased. From the claim petition I find that deceased Jogendra Singh was driving the truck of his father. In case 50% amount is disbursed in their favour, there is all the possibility of squandering of same by the persons having interest in the matter. This way the very purpose and object of providing immediate financial aid to the dependents will be frustrated. (4). Instead of disbursing the 50% amount to the claimants the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal should have invested the amount in the long term fixed deposit and permitted the claimants i.e. widow and the minor daughter to withdraw the monthly interest accrues thereon for their maintenance. (4). Instead of disbursing the 50% amount to the claimants the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal should have invested the amount in the long term fixed deposit and permitted the claimants i.e. widow and the minor daughter to withdraw the monthly interest accrues thereon for their maintenance. The order made for investment and disbursement of amount of interim award for the father and mother of the deceased is also not in consonance with the justice oriented approach as well as to provide the immediate financial aid to the widow and minor daughter of the deceased. The father of deceased as per the claim petition is a man of means. He is the owner of the truck. In these facts this principle that they are the legal heirs of the deceased would not have been applied at this stage and looking to the age of widow and minor daughter, total amount of Rs. 50,000/- would have been invested in the long term deposit and the withdrawal of amount of the monthly interest accrues thereon permitted to them for their expenses. (5). The Assurance Company has challenged this order of the Tribunal and I fail to see any ground, justification and necessity for the company to file this petition against this order cum award which is to be passed by the Tribunal on the basis of no fault liability. It is not the case of the petitioner that it has filed any reply to the claim petition of the claimants. It is also not the case of the petitioner that it is raised this objection of jurisdiction of the Tribunal to try the claim petition. From the impugned order it also no where comes out that this objection regarding the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to try the claim petition has been raised. (6). The Assurance Company is not an ordinary litigant. It is a State or agency or the instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. In the claim case filed by the claimants for the compensation for the death of their bread earner the Assurance Company has very limited defences which can be raised by it. The Company is unnecessarily has indulged itself in this total uncalled for and avoidable litigation. The question whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction in matter or not is not a pure question of law. The Company is unnecessarily has indulged itself in this total uncalled for and avoidable litigation. The question whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction in matter or not is not a pure question of law. It is a mixed question of law and facts for which this way what the grievance has been made by the petitioner leaving apart the question whether this defence is available or not is wholly unjustified. In fact this petition filed by the petitioner Assurance Company is not a bonafide one. To raise the question of jurisdiction first reply is to be filed by the Company in which this plea has to be raised and the Tribunal then has to frame issue if pressed and after recording the evidence of the parties to give decision thereon. In this case the Assurance Company has not bothered, cared and concerned to file the reply to the claim petition. Not only this the Assurance Company has also not filed the reply to the application of the claimants filed for the interim compensation. During the course of argument on this application also the Assurance Company has not raised any such objection before the Tribunal in the matter. When the Assurance Company has not raised this point of jurisdiction before the Tribunal I fail to see how it is permissible to it to challenge the order of the Tribunal on this ground before this Court. This petition is wholly misconceived, misplaced and ill-advice. (7). Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to show any illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal on merits of the case. On merits as it is clearly borne out from the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner the Assurance Company has no objection against that order. Its only objection is that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition and may be to pass the order. The Court put to the counsel for the petitioner and he failed to give any reply to it that even if on this question the company succeeds leaving the fact whether this defence is permitted to be raised or not by the petitioner what ultimately it will gain in the matter. (8). There is yet another reason for which the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise this objection in this writ petition. (8). There is yet another reason for which the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise this objection in this writ petition. It is absolute a new point which has been raised first time by the petitioner in this petition. When this point has not been raised by the petitioner before the Tribunal, it cannot be permitted to be raised by it in the petition under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution. Section 140 is inserted in the Act, 1988 with the object and purpose so as to provide immediate financial assistance to the dependents of the deceased who died in the motor accident. This provision has a socio economic object and purpose and it is a statutory provision whereunder in the case of fatal motor accident Rs. 50,000/- has to be awarded to the claimant as an interim compensation on the principle of no fault liability. In view of this underline object, purpose and desire of Parliament, how for it is justified for the Assurance Company to raise this frivolous, flimsy and baseless objection. In view of this benevolent provision under Sec. 140 of the M.V. Act this objection raised has no substance or any concern at this stage in the matter. (9). Instead of filing this petition and wasting the peoples money, the Company should have voluntarily comply with this order/interim order. It is not fair nor expected from the Company to raise such a frivolous, flimsy and baseless objection in a matter where a young lady and a minor child lost their husband and father. (10). Insurance of the motor vehicle is a statutory compulsion. This is made by the obvious reason so that dependents of deceased or the injured in a motor vehicle accident, as the case may be, get the compensation immediately from the insurer. (11). The vehicles are insured by the Assurance Company not for raising all these flimsy and baseless defences in the claim petition but to ensure the payment of amount of compensation which is awarded to the claimants. Under section 140 of the M.V. Act amount of interim compensation awarded on the principle of no fault liability and the Assurance Company is to make the payment thereof. Instead of standing to its commitments and obligations, the Assurance Company has entered into this litigation. It has acted in this matter worst than what an ordinary litigant may do. (12). Under section 140 of the M.V. Act amount of interim compensation awarded on the principle of no fault liability and the Assurance Company is to make the payment thereof. Instead of standing to its commitments and obligations, the Assurance Company has entered into this litigation. It has acted in this matter worst than what an ordinary litigant may do. (12). It is said earlier and to be stated at the cost of repetition that the insurance company is not an ordinary litigant. (13). The Assurance Company would have its legal cell but it is wasting its money in keeping this cell. It is the only work the officers in the legal cell are doing it is better that company to close this cell and use the amount which it incurs for its expenses for some other welfare purposes. The Assurance Company is not there to spend the peoples money in this frivolous, flimsy and baseless, misconceived, misplaced and ill-advice litigation. It is not only this insurance/assurance company but my experience on the Bench go to show that all assurance companies are not complying with the single order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal u/Sec.140 of the M.V. Act. It does not permit any order of the Tribunal to go unchallenged in the court. The legislature in its wisdom has not provided any appeal or revision against this order. The intention is very clear that it wants to give the finality to this order so that at that stage these poor persons may not be unnecessarily drove in the litigation. In case where the legislature has not made an order and that too an interlocutory order appealable or revisable, this Court sitting under Art. 226 or 227 of the Constitution may not interfere in the matter as a rule or right. If we go by this fact that indiscriminately the assurance companies are filing the petitions in the Courts against the order cum interim award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal passed under Sec. 140 of the M.V. Act, one thing is clear that the Companies are more concerned with the litigation though for whose benefit it is difficult to say at this stage. At least the assurance company impersonal machinery is not benefited by this litigation. The officers of the company are the concerned persons. At least the assurance company impersonal machinery is not benefited by this litigation. The officers of the company are the concerned persons. They put to heavy expenses to be incurred by the company in the litigation in which ultimately whether it is won or lost they are personally not going to suffer or loose anything. It is difficult to believe and accept that the officers of this company and more particularly its law officers would not have known of this provision of the law that the amount of interim compensation awarded under Sec. 140 of the M.V. Act is ultimately to be deducted from amount of the compensation finally awarded in the case. So whatever the amount paid at this stage by the company is deductible from the amount of compensation finally awarded to the claimant. So if go by this way even if it is taken that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction in the matter and this order is passed how this company will suffer any loss. (14). By challenging this award in fact the company has unnecessarily been burdened by its officers of the heavy expenses of this litigation. Instead of spending this amount in this frivolous, baseless, misconceived, misplaced, avoidable and ill- advice litigation this amount could have been better utilised towards the payment of the amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the claimants. The assurance company is impersonal machinery and whatever is done for it, it is done by its officers. By this petition, two fold inferences can be drawn. Firstly the officers of the company are not vigilant and careful of their duties which they owe to the company. Secondly they are interested to oblige an undisclosed class of persons. In both ways ultimately this impersonal machinery is not only to suffer but the public at large. (15). It is the duties of the officers of the company to see that unnecessary litigation does not come up in the court and the company is not burdened with the heavy liability of the expenses of litigation in a matter which is totally uncalled for, undesirable and avoidable at this stage. The assurance company has good number of litigations in the court. One of the cause of this good number of the litigation of the company in the court is that its officers are not acting in the interest of the company. The assurance company has good number of litigations in the court. One of the cause of this good number of the litigation of the company in the court is that its officers are not acting in the interest of the company. They are under the impression that whatever the order passed against the company it has to be challenged. It is not the correct approach of the officers of the company. The assurance company is being the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution as well as having the good number of cases in the court has to take all care and caution that as far as possible it may not burden the court with a litigation which is totally avoidable. (16). The courts are already facing serious problem how to over come this heavy pendency of the cases. Instead of providing helping hands to the court to find out the ways to reduce heavy workload, its officers are acting contrary and making all efforts to bring in the court a litigation which is totally avoidable. (17). The petition under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution is not a remedy of right and as a rule. Under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution this Court exercise its extra ordinary equitable jurisdiction. This extra ordinary equitable jurisdiction is not meant for this class of litigant who is acting contrary to the basic object and purpose for which the Section 140 was inserted in M.V. Act, 1988. Moreover even in a case where the court is satisfied that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction in the matter to entertain the claim petition, it is not necessary that the court to interfere in the matter and the petition is to be allowed and the relief as prayed for has to be granted to the company. Even in such matter this Court may legitimately decline to exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. Any interference if is made in this case only on this ground raised certainly it will result in causing injury and hardship to the claimants, the young widow and minor girl of the deceased, who lost their bread earner in a motor accident. Under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution this Court cannot assume unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions. Under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution this Court cannot assume unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions. It must be restricted to cases of grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes. This Court if in this matter interferes, it will result it causing grave injustice to the claimants. In case this petition is dismissed, the company is not to suffer or loose anything. It is not the case where in case this Court in the matter does not interfere it will result in causing injustice or injury to the petitioner. The reference here fruitfully may have to two decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of A.M. Allison & Anr. vs. R.L. Sen & Ors. (1), and Balvantrai Chimanlal Trivedi, Manager, Raipur Mafg. Co., Ltd. Ahmedabad vs. M.N. Nagrashna & Ors. (2). (18). Taking into consideration totality of the facts of this case, it is wholly a misconceived, misplaced and ill-adviced petition. If any interference is made and the relief is granted in favour of the petitioner in this case it will heavily come on this poor widow and minor daughter of the deceased. (19). In the result this petition fails and same is dismissed. (20). In this petition the petitioner has made an attempt to abuse the process of the Court. Not only this by filing this wholly avoidable litigation in this Court, the petitioner has consumed unnecessarily valuable and precious judicial time of the Court. The Court cannot tolerate this filing of this petition by the company in such matter which is wholly undesirable, uncalled for and unnecessary leaving apart that it was totally avoidable also. It is a fit case where the Court to impose costs of the petition against the company. The Company is directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- as costs of this petition which amount is to be deposited by it in the Chief Ministers Relief Fund within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (21). A copy of this order be sent to the Regional Manager of the New India Assurance Company Ltd., Second Floor, Nehru Place, Tonk Road, Jaipur forthwith. (21). A copy of this order be sent to the Regional Manager of the New India Assurance Company Ltd., Second Floor, Nehru Place, Tonk Road, Jaipur forthwith. In case the amount of interim award Rs.50,000/- has not been deposited so far by the Assurance Company in the Tribunal, the company is directed to deposit the same with- in the period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The Tribunal is directed to deposit this amount of Rs.50,000/- in the long term FDR in the name of its Registrar and monthly interest accrues thereon is to be paid to the claimants Smt. Baljinder Kaur & Kumari Mandeep under the guardianship of her mother Smt. Baljinder Kaur. The Tribunal is further directed to see that the claimants aforestated may not unnecessarily be put to or subject to any harassment in the matter of with- drawal of the interest. The Tribunal to deposit this amount in the Branch of any scheduled bank near to the house of these claimants and necessary instructions be given to the bank concerned to credit the monthly interest accrues on this deposit in the saving bank account of the claimants at the same Branch of this Bank or any other Bank.