JUDGMENT All these appeals are pertaining to the same accident. About 44 persons were travelling in a tractor-trailer to attend the funeral function. As a result of the accident, 9 inmates died and 27 persons were injured. The petitioners sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('Act' for short). The application is made under Section 140 of the Act to seek interim compensation. The Tribunal directed the owner and insurer to pay the compensation. Appellant is the insurer. 2. It is the contention of the respondents that an appeal under Section 173 of the Act, would not lie against an order under Section 140 of the Act. In this regard, the decision of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Bapu Onkar Choudhari1, is relied on. In the said decision the Bombay High Court interpreting Rule 281 of the Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Rules, held that an order passed under Section 140 of the Act, is not an award. 3. The Full Bench decision of the Karnataka High Court pertains to an appeal against grant of interim compensation under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which corresponding to Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, wherein it is held that while granting interim compensation, it is also necessary that liability of insurer is to be decided on the basis of the terms of policy while fastening the liability. The Full Bench decision impliedly affirms the view that an appeal under Section 173 would lie against an interim award. The Rule 250 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, makes it clear that an order passed under Section 140 of the Act is also an award. Therefore, it becomes appealable under Section 173 of the Act. 4. In the decision of the Bombay High Court, the State Road Transport Authority was directed to pay the compensation. State Road Transport Authority has a self-insurance Scheme. In the ultimate analysis as a owner, the State Road Transport Corporation cannot avoid liability in such circumstances. 5. In the instant case, it is established by the admitted facts that the petitioners are the unauthorised passengers in the tractor-trailer. In view of the ruling of the Supreme Court in Chinnamma George v. N.K Raju1, the insurer does not incur the liability. Therefore, directing the insurer to pay the interim compensation is bad in law. 6. 5. In the instant case, it is established by the admitted facts that the petitioners are the unauthorised passengers in the tractor-trailer. In view of the ruling of the Supreme Court in Chinnamma George v. N.K Raju1, the insurer does not incur the liability. Therefore, directing the insurer to pay the interim compensation is bad in law. 6. In this view of the matter, the appeals are allowed. The amount shall be refunded to the appellant.