Honble KESHOTE, J.–Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. On 8th of May, 2000 the matter has come up for preliminary hearing before the Court. The Court ordered- ``Issue notice confined to respondent No.5, provided the Insurance Company has paid the interim compensation to the dependents of the deceased victim. Notices be sent by registered post with A.D. after the counsel for the petitioner filed the proof of payment in the Registry. (2). The petitioner has not filed any proof of the payment of interim compensation to the dependents of the deceased victim of the motor vehicle accident. (3). On 14th of March, 2001 the counsel who appeared for the petitioner made a statement that the interim compensation has already been paid to the claimants. This statement was taken on record. Notices were issued to respondent No.5. The court has directed to the petitioner to produce on record the receipt of payment of the amount of interim compensation to the claimants. The petitioner has neither filed the receipt of the payment of interim compensation on record nor the process fee and notices for respondent No.5 have been submitted. On 15.3.2001 the Registry has ordered to comply and put up on 30th April 2001 in case the process fee and notices are filed on or before 22.03.2001. On 24.2001 a report was made by the office that process fee and notices for respondent No.5 have not been filed. (4). The matter was directed to be placed before the Registrar on 12.4.2001. On 12.4.2001 the matter was placed before the Registrar. Nobody was present on behalf of the petitioner. The Registrar granted two weeks time to file process fee and notices. On 13.4.2001 the Registrar ordered to list the case on 26.4.2001 with report. On 27.4.2001 the Office reported that Process Fee and notices for respondent No. 5 have not been filed. On 27.4.2001 the Registrar ordered to list the matter in the court on 29.5.2001. On 28.5.2001 the registry directed the matter to be placed before the Court on 25.7.2001. On 21.7.2001 the Office reported that the petitioner has not filed Process Fee and notices for respondent No.5. (5). That is how this matter has come up for hearing on 25.7.2001. On 27.4.2001 the Registrar ordered to list the matter in the court on 29.5.2001. On 28.5.2001 the registry directed the matter to be placed before the Court on 25.7.2001. On 21.7.2001 the Office reported that the petitioner has not filed Process Fee and notices for respondent No.5. (5). That is how this matter has come up for hearing on 25.7.2001. The Court has also taken the report from the Registry whether the petitioner has produced the receipt of payment of interim compensation to the claimants or not. The Office reported that the petitioner has not produced any proof or receipt of the payment of the interim compensation to the claimants. The petitioner has not complied with the order of the Court dated 8.5.2000 as well as dated 14.3.2001. (6). In this petition the notice was issued to the respondent No. 5 on the condition that the petitioner would pay the amount of interim compensation to the claimants and that condition has not been complied with. On 14.3.2001 this Court on the statement of the counsel for the petitioner has ordered to issue fresh notice to the respondent No. 5 on the specific understanding that in the meanwhile the counsel for the petitioner will submit the receipt of the payment of the interim compensation to the claimants. This order has not been complied with. The receipt has not been produced on record so it is clear that the petitioner has not paid the amount of interim compensation to the claimants and only on this ground this petition deserves to be dismissed. (7). There is another ground on which this petition deserves to be dismissed. The petitioner has not filed Process Fee and notices for respondent No.5 from 14.3.2001 to date. More than sufficient time was there with the petitioner to file process fee and notice but this has not been done and this petition deserves to be dismissed for non prosecution. (8). It is petition by the New India Assurance Company Limited (for short `the Assurance Company). In the petition the petitioner is challenging the order dated 2.11.1999 (Annexure-2) passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Behror. The Assurance Company is not an ordinary litigant. It is a State or agency of the State or the instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. In the petition the petitioner is challenging the order dated 2.11.1999 (Annexure-2) passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Behror. The Assurance Company is not an ordinary litigant. It is a State or agency of the State or the instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Insurance regarding third party of a vehicle is statutory insurance, so it is compulsory to be taken by the owner of the vehicle regarding third party. Under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short `the Act of 1988) the Assurance Company has also very limited defence to be taken in the claim petition filed by the claimants for compensation regarding death or injury in a motor vehicle accident. The reference may have to sec. 149 of the Act of 1988. The Assurance Company has to take all care in order to avoid unnecessary delay in the proceedings of the claim petition. It is also to see that its representative/advocate is not taking frivolous, baseless and unwarranted objections in the claim petition. It has to scrutinize the defence taken by the representative/advocate and should permit only those defence which are permissible to it under Sec. 149 of the Act of 1988. But, it is unfortunate that this Assurance Company for the reasons best known to it, acts in the claim matters worst then the ordinary litigant. It takes all sorts of objections and defences in the claim petition which may not be permissible to it. Not only this, it is in the habit of filing the litigation in the Court against the interlocutory orders or interim awards made by the Tribunal. Everyday the petitions filed on behalf of the Assurance Company against the order passed by the Tribunal awarding the interim compensation under Sec. 140 of the Act of 1988 to the claimants are coming up. It shows that the Assurance Company is acting in these matters totally against justice oriented approach. It is also acting contrary to what it its obligation in these matters. Where it insured the vehicle to ensure that in case any person suffers any injury or died in a motor vehicle accident, it may reimburse the liability of the owner regarding the compensation to be paid by him to the claimants or the injured as the case may be. (9). Interlocutory order does not finally terminate the main matter. Where it insured the vehicle to ensure that in case any person suffers any injury or died in a motor vehicle accident, it may reimburse the liability of the owner regarding the compensation to be paid by him to the claimants or the injured as the case may be. (9). Interlocutory order does not finally terminate the main matter. Against the interlocutory orders or the orders passed by the Tribunal under Sec. 140 of the Act no appeal or revision is provided by the Parliament to this Court. The reason is very obvious so that this order may attain finality. Interlocutory order is subject to the challenge and judicial review by this Court but in the appeal filed against final award made by the Tribunal. It is a matter of claim filed b the claimants for compensation and all endeavour is to be made by the Assurance Company to see that expeditiously the same is decided by the Tribunal. But here in this case the Assurance Company has acted totally contrary to what it is expected from it. By challenging this interlocutory order what the Assurance Company is doing to stall the final adjudication of the claim petition. This Court should not permit stalling of the final adjudication and decision in the motor vehicle accident cases at the instance of the Assurance Company by permitting it to challenge the interlocutory order. That precisely what the Assurance Company is attempting in this matter. The Assurance Company is acting contrary to the basic conception of socio economic which is underlying object and purpose of the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. (10). In this Claim petition the evidence of the petitioner was closed on 27th of May, 1999 by the Tribunal. In the application filed by the petitioner on 5th of October, 1999 for reopening of its evidence the reason has been given that despite of sending repeated notices to the witnesses they are not appearing before the Tribunal. It appears to be the defence of the Assurance Company that the driving license of the Driver of the Vehicle which is issued from Regional Transport Officer, Sikandrabad is a forged document. Prayer is made in this application for appointment of the Commissioner for examination of licensing authority of Sikandrabad. This way the attempt is made to get the evidence closed by the Tribunal of the petitioner reopened. Prayer is made in this application for appointment of the Commissioner for examination of licensing authority of Sikandrabad. This way the attempt is made to get the evidence closed by the Tribunal of the petitioner reopened. The claim petition is of the year 1990 and in stead of giving assistance to the Tribunal by the petitioner in deciding the matter finally, it is creating hurdles and obstructions in its way. The petitioner has more then sufficient opportunity to produce the record or some officer from the R.T.O., Sikandrabad. This application is filed for examination of that record of the Officer only after closure of the evidence of the petitioner. I do not consider it to be appropriate and in the interest of the petitioner to give any finding on merits of this order otherwise it may result in causing prejudice to the petitioner if it ultimately decides to challenge this order while challenging the final award passed in the matter. This is only an interlocutory order in which no interference is called for. The reason is very obvious that if the final award goes against the petitioner, it can challenge this order in appeal to be filed in the matter. This court will not permit to the petitioner to stall the final adjudication of the claim petition by challenging this interlocutory order. Under this order nothing is finally decided against the petitioner. (11). Otherwise also on merit of the matter I do not find it to be a fit case where this Court has to make an interference in this interlocutory order. This petition is nothing but only an attempt on the part of the Assurance Company to unnecessary consume the precious and valuable judicial time of the Court. The Assurance Company is the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and its Officers should have taken all the care to save the public money and to ensure that the courts valuable time is not wasted. That care and caution is not taken by the Law Officers of the Assurance Company which is clearly borne out from the fact that the Assurance Company is challenging almost all interlocutory orders passed by the Tribunal in the claim petitions. It is a fit case where exemplary costs is to be imposed on the petitioner. (12). Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. It is a fit case where exemplary costs is to be imposed on the petitioner. (12). Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2000/- (Rs. two thousand only) as costs of this petition which is to be deposited by it in the Chief Ministers Relief Fund within a period of one months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and the receipt of depositing the costs is to be submitted in the Registry of the Court immediately thereafter. The office is directed to send a copy of the order to the petitioner.