Judgment 1. This appeal is barred by limitation. 2. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and after having perused the averments made in the limitation petition, the delay in filing this appeal is condoned. 3. This appeal is directed against the order dated 18.2.1999 passed by the learned single Judge whereby the order passed under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act in favour of the appellant has been set aside on the ground that there was no permanent disablement in the case of the appellant on account of accident. 4. The order under appeal before the learned single Judge was passed under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act which provides for liability to pay compensation on the principle of no fault. At this stage this Court cannot go into details and on the basis of the prima facie finding an order has to be passed. The appellant met with an accident and his 6th to 9th ribs of left side were fractured. Learned single Judge opined that the fracture of the ribs does not amount to permanent disablement. 5. Section 142 of the Motor Vehicles Act contains the provision with regard to permanent disablement and section 142(b) provides that the destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint is permanent disablement. The question whether the fracture of ribs amounts to destruction or permanent impairing of powers of ribs or not is to be considered at the time of final disposal of the matter. At this stage on the basis of the medical report prima facie we are of the view that the case of permanent disablement is made out and the learned single Judge was not justified in interfering with the order of the tribunal ordering for payment of interim compensation on no fault liability. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the order of the tribunal is restored. It is, however, made clear that this Court is not expressing any final opinion as to whether there was permanent disablement of the appellant or not. That question has to be considered finally by the tribunal on the basis of the materials available on the record. 6. It is, however, made clear that this Court is not expressing any final opinion as to whether there was permanent disablement of the appellant or not. That question has to be considered finally by the tribunal on the basis of the materials available on the record. 6. While parting with this appeal, we may mention that inspite of the amendment in the Code of Civil Procedure and insertion of section 100-A, appeal is maintainable in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Subal Paul vs. Malina Paul, reported in 2003(3) PLJR 1 (SC). 7. In the result, this appeal is allowed.