Judgment 1. Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar No. for the appellant, and Mr. Arvind Kumar Verma for respondent no.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 21.1.2000, passed by the learned 5th Additional Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Muzaffarpur, in Claim Case No. 12/97 (Abhishek Kumar vs. Indu Devi & Ors.), whereby he has allowed the claim application under Section 141 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and has directed the appellant-Insurance Company to pay interim compensation of Rs. 25,000/- on no-fault basis to the claimant. 2. I have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant has rightly placed before me the provision of Section 140 read with Section 142 of the Act which states that interim compensation on no-fault basis can be granted only when the person has suffered permanent disability. He has rightly relied on the Division Bench judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court reported in 1998 Accident Claims Journal 523 (Saurabh Kumar Shukla vs. Hukam Chand & Ors.), paragraphs 16 and 17 of which are relevant in the present context. Paragraph 16 explains "permanent disability" in the context of Sections 140 and 142 of the Act. Paragraph 17, inter alia, lays down that the learned Claims Tribunal while allowing a claim in terms of Section 140 of the Act must record an interim finding that the injured person has suffered permanent disability in terms of Section 142 of the Act. 3. It appears to me on a perusal of the impugned order that the learned Claims Tribunal has not recorded any such finding. The claimant has placed before me a counter affidavit which annexes a certificate by an Orthopaedic Surgeon, but the same does not indicate whether or not the injury suffered by the claimant has resulted in permanent disability. The impugned order also does not record the requisite finding. Learned counsel for the claimant has relied on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court reported in 1996(2) TAC 545 (K M Sangita vs. Narendra Singh & Ors.), wherein it has been observed in the facts and circumstances of that case that the fracture of the tibia bone to the claimant, who was an unmarried girl of 17 years, has resulted in permanent disability to her. That is a finding of fact on the basis of the evidence in that case and cannot govern the present case. I have already observed hereinabove that prima facie it appears to me in the present case that it is not a case of permanent disability. The judgment is, therefore, inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 4. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order is hereby set aside. Instead of wasting any time over disposal of such an interlocutory matter, the learned Claims Tribunal is hereby directed to dispose of the claim case expeditiously. The statutory amount deposited by the appellant in this Court may be returned by means of an appropriate instrument in favour of the appellant and be handed over to its learned counsel.