ORDER 1. This appeal is filed by the claimants challenging order dated 6.7.2005 whereby the 4th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior has refused to pass interim award in favour of the present claimants appellants in Claim Case No. 144/04. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants have filed a claim petition alleging that father of the appellants Harbhajan Singh Sachdeva met with an accident on 28.6.2004 with an Auto (three wheeler) bearing Registration No. MP-07-2591. Due to the said accident Harbhajan Singh died. A report to this effect was lodged on the same day but the registration number of the offending vehicle was not mentioned in the report. The police investigated the matter and found that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the auto bearing Registration No. MP-07-2591, which was being rashly and negligently driven by its driver, respondent No. 1. The claim petition was filed for compensation along with an application under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Said application is rejected by the impugned order on the ground that the registration number of the offending vehicle was mentioned first time after ten days of the accident, hence the Claims Tribunal observed that the involvement of the vehicle in the accident is doubtful. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that this order is illegal and is without jurisdiction. According to him the insurance of the offending vehicle is not disputed by the Insurance Company. At the stage of deciding the application under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which is regarding no fault liability only thing which is to be seen is that whether the accident had occurred or not and whether the vehicle is insured with the Insurance Company or not. He also relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Guddi Bai (Smt.) v. Purushottam Pal [ 1999 (I) MPWN 149 ], wherein this Court has allowed an application under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In that case the Claims Tribunal had rejected the application under section 140 of the Act on the ground that the number of the tempo had not been mentioned in the FIR and the offending vehicle was seized after about 23 days of the accident. Hence, the accident as per the Claims Tribunal was doubtful. In that case the Claims Tribunal had rejected the application under section 140 of the Act on the ground that the number of the tempo had not been mentioned in the FIR and the offending vehicle was seized after about 23 days of the accident. Hence, the accident as per the Claims Tribunal was doubtful. This Court, after considering the judgment of the apex Court in the case of Shivaji Dayanu Patil and another v. Smt. Vatschala Uttam More [ AIR 1991 SC 1769 ] has held that the Tribunal was not justified in refusing the application under section 140 of the Act. 4. Counsel for the respondent relying on the judgment of this Court in the case of Harendra Singh v. Ranjeet Kaur [1997 (II) MPWN 120] has stated that in a case of doubtful accident the amount of interim compensation should be disbursed at the time of final award. However, 1 am not inclined to accept this argument as the realisation of the amount of interim award at the time of final decision would frustrate the very object of section 140 of the Act. 5. In the present case the owner of the offending vehicle was examined under section 161 CrPC and in his statement under section 161 CrPC he has stated that after he returned to the town he was informed that his vehicle was involved in the accident. Considering this fact 1 allow this application and direct the respondent, Insurance Company to deposit the amount of interim award of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only). 6. In the result, this appeal is allowed with the above direction.