( 1 ) BY the present appeal, the appellant challenges a judgment and order, rendered by M. A. C. Tribunal, Bhavnagar in M. A. C. Petition No. 644 of 2002, below Exh. 5, which is an application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), claiming interim compensation of Rs. 25,000/-, on the ground that the claimant having sustained permanent partial disability. ( 2 ) THE Tribunal, after considering the various contentions raised before it, came to a conclusion that the claimant was entitled to a compensation and as the requirements of Section 140 of the Act were satisfied, awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- by way of compensation under "no fault liability" provision of the Act. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the present appeal is preferred by original opponent No. 3 " the National Insurance Company. ( 3 ) LEARNED Advocate Mr. Shah appearing for the appellant submitted that the Insurance Co. is ready to deposit the remaining amount of compensation with proportionate cost and interest with the Tribunal. He also submitted that the entire amount may be invested in fixed deposit till claim application under Section 166 of the Act is decided. ( 4 ) LEARNED Advocate Mr. Shah submitted that the claimant had sustained fracture on 3rd and 5th ribs (right) which cannot be considered as a permanent partial disability envisaged under Section 140 of the Act and the Tribunal, therefore, erred in awarding compensation in exercise of powers under Section 140 of the Act. In support of his contention, Mr. Shah has relied on following decisions: (i) Anjana Vs. Mangal Singh and Others,1996 ACJ 1349 (Rajasthan High Court); (ii) Raj Kishore Vs. Shri Ram Agrawal, 1996 ACJ 1351 Madhya Pradesh High Court) (iii)Saurabh Kumar Shukla Vs. Hukam Chand and Others, 1998 ACJ 523 (Madhya Pradesh High Court); (iv) Rajesh Vs. Dalip and Others, AIR 1999 MP 66 ; (v) National Insurance Co. Vs. A. Asusu and Others,2000 (2) ICC 193 (Guahati High Court); and submitted that this appeal may be entertained. (1) According to Mr. Shah, compensation under Section 140 of the Act can be awarded only if the claimant has sustained permanent partial disability. Dalip and Others, AIR 1999 MP 66 ; (v) National Insurance Co. Vs. A. Asusu and Others,2000 (2) ICC 193 (Guahati High Court); and submitted that this appeal may be entertained. (1) According to Mr. Shah, compensation under Section 140 of the Act can be awarded only if the claimant has sustained permanent partial disability. The permanent disability envisaged under Section 140 of the Act has to be one under Section 142 of the Act and if the injury does not fall within any of the categories indicated in Section 142 of the Act, the claimant has to pursue his claim under Chapter-XII of the Act by preferring application under Section 166 of the Act. He cannot be awarded compensation under Section 140 of the Act. ( 5 ) THIS Court has taken into consideration the contentions raised by learned Advocate Mr. Shah; has examined the evidence on record and has also considered the decisions relied upon by learned Advocate Mr. Shah for the appellant. ( 6 ) THIS Court is, therefore, required to examine and interpret Section 142 of the Act and answer whether, award under Section 140 of the Act can be passed, in non-fatal cases, only if injuries falling in categories (a), (b) or (c) of Section 142 of the Act are shown to have resulted. Differently put, whether Section 142 of the Act circumscribes the power of the Tribunal under Section 140 of the Act to award compensation only in cases of injuries shown in Section 142 of the Act. (1) For that purpose, relevant provisions of the Act need a look. They read as under : section 140 : Liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle of no fault:- (1) Where death or permanent disablement of any person has resulted from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles, the owner of the vehicle shall, or, as the case may be, the owners of the vehicles shall, jointly and severally, be liable to pay compensation in respect of such death or disablement in accordance with the provisions of this section. (2) The amount of compensation which shall be payable under sub-section (1) in respect of the death of any person shall be a fixed sum of [fifty thousand rupees] and the amount of compensation payable under that sub-section in respect of the permanent disablement of any person shall be a fixed sum of [twenty-five thousand only]. (3) If any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead and establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner or owners of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person. (4) A claim for compensation under sub-section (1) shall not be defeated by reason of any wrongful act, neglect or default of the person in respect of whose death or permanent disablement the claim has been made nor shall the quantum of compensation recoverable in respect of such death or permanent disablement be reduced on the basis of the share of such person in the responsibility for such death or permanent disablement. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) regarding death or bodily injury to any person, for which the owner of the vehicle is liable to give compensation for relief, he is also liable to pay compensation under any other law for the time being in force;provided that the amount of such compensation to be given under any other law shall be reduced from the amount of compensation payable under this section or under Section 163a. Section 142 : Permanent disablement.-- For the purpose of this Chapter, permanent disablement of a person shall be deemed to have resulted from an accident of the nature referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 140 if such person has suffered by reason of the accident, any injury or injuries involving :- (a) permanent privation of the sight of either eye or the hearing of either ear, or privation of any member or joint; or (b) destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint; or (c) permanent disfiguration of the head or face. ( 7 ) SECTION-140 Sub-Section (1) provides that where death or permanent disablement of any person has resulted from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles, the owner of the vehicle shall, or, as the case may may be, the owners of the vehicle shall, jointly and severally, be liable to pay compensation in respect of such death or disablement in accordance with the provisions of this Section. It is, thus, clear that compensation can be claimed and can be awarded under two eventualities; (i) Death of any person or (ii) permanent disablement resulting out of an accident out of the use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles. It is further clear that Section 140 contemplates only the permanent disablement. It does not restrict the right to claim or power to award compensation only in respect of injuries envisaged under Section 142 of the Act. The entitlement under Section 140 of the Act is, thus, not circumscribed by the injuries envisaged under Section 142 of the Act. ( 8 ) NOW, if Section 142 of the Act is examined, it provides that permanent disablement of a person shall be deemed to have resulted from an accident of the nature referred to in Sub-Section (1) of Section 140 if such person has suffered, by reason of the accident, any injury or injuries involving the injuries indicated in Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the said Section. Thus, the intent behind enacting Section 142 of the Act by Legislature is clearly to introduce a deeming provision in respect of injuries indicated in Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of said Section. Therefore, where such injuries are shown to have resulted out of an accident, it shall be deemed to have resulted into permanent disablement and no separate proof of permanent disability would be necessary. This provision by no stretch of imagination can be interpreted to mean that compensation under Section 140 of the Act can be claimed and awarded only in cases where accident has resulted into injuries indicated in Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 142 of the Act. As stated earlier, Section 140 of the Act does not restrict right to claim compensation thereunder only to injuries indicated in Section 142 only. As stated earlier, Section 140 of the Act does not restrict right to claim compensation thereunder only to injuries indicated in Section 142 only. Had that been the intention of the Law-makers, there would have been some provision in Section 140 of the Act itself to show such a restriction. On the contrary, there is not even a reference to Section 142 in Section 140 of the Act. ( 9 ) THE provision contained in Section 142 of the Act is a deeming provision and illustrates the situations where permanent disablement is deemed to have resulted from the accident. It does not and cannot be read to exclude other injuries which may have resulted into permanent partial disablement. The injuries indicated in Section 142 of the Act is not an exhaustive list of permanent partial disablement envisaged under Section 140 of the Act but, is only illustrative of cases where formal proof of permanent disability is not required. (1) It is to be noted that provision of the Act contained in Chapter-X which include Sections 140 and 142 are aimed at social welfare. Section 140 is aimed at providing instant interim compensation to victims of accident where death or permanent disability results out of an accident. In such a situation, Court should adopt a liberal interpretation by adopting beneficial principles of construction or interpretation in a manner which would fulfill the policy of Legislature. (2) The Legislature, in its wisdom, has shown sensitivity to difficulties of victims of accident who sustain such serious injuries and has shown benevolence by making such a provision (Section 142) to exempt such injured persons from trouble of formality proving the permanent disability aspect in cases of injuries stated therein. Once the injury envisaged under Section 142 of the Act is shown to have resulted out of an accident, it is deemed to have resulted in permanent disability without proof of such permanent disability. (3) It is, therefore, not possible to agree with and to accept the submissions made by learned Advocate Mr. Shah. ( 10 ) LEARNED Advocate Mr. Shah has relied on decision in the case of Saurabh Kumar Shukla Vs. Hukam Chand and Others, 1998 ACJ 523 in support of his contention. (3) It is, therefore, not possible to agree with and to accept the submissions made by learned Advocate Mr. Shah. ( 10 ) LEARNED Advocate Mr. Shah has relied on decision in the case of Saurabh Kumar Shukla Vs. Hukam Chand and Others, 1998 ACJ 523 in support of his contention. But, if the decision is closely examined, the issue before the Court was whether, fracture of a bone simpliciter without there being any permanent impairment or weakness of body on account of it, would amount to permanent disability so as to entitle the claimant to claim compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act and it was answered in negative. The Court took into consideration various pronouncements, various definitions of disability, permanent disability and various kinds of injuries and observed that, "permanent disability is not a purely medical condition. A patient is permanently disabled if under a permanent disability when his actual or presumed ability to engage in gainful activity is reduced or absent because of impairment and no fundamental or marked change in the future can be expected". The Court further observed that, "permanent disability applies to permanent damage or to loss of use of some part of the body after the stage of maximum improvement from orthopedic or other medical treatment has been reached and the condition is stationary". The Court observed that, if the Court is prima facie satisfied on the material produced by the claimant that the fracture of the bone has resulted in any permanent disablement certainly compensation under Section 140 of the Act will be granted. (1) The Court observed that, "grant of relief under Section 140 of the Act will depend on facts and circumstances of each case, nature and form of fracture and its resultant effect. No hard and fast rule can be laid down. If the requirements of Section 140 are prima facie satisfied certainly the Court would grant relief under Section 140 of the Act. " Thus, it is clear from the judgment that if the fracture has not resulted into a permanent disablement, compensation under Section 140 of the Act cannot be awarded. It is, however, not possible to contemplate a situation that where there is no injury envisaged under Section 142 of the Act, award under Section 140 cannot be passed, for the reasons discussed herein above. It is, however, not possible to contemplate a situation that where there is no injury envisaged under Section 142 of the Act, award under Section 140 cannot be passed, for the reasons discussed herein above. (2) The Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Raj Kishore Vs. Shri Ram Agrawal, 1996 ACJ 1351 also considered a similar situation and came to a conclusion that, "hair-line fracture in the skull not resulting into permanent partial disablement would not entitle to a compensation under Section 140 of the Act. It was observed that, "section 142 of the Act defines permanent disablement which means permanent privation of sight of either eye or the hearing of either ear or privation of any member or joint and destruction or permanent impairing of powers of any member or joint, or permanent disfiguration of the head or face and hair-line fracture would not fall within the definition of permanent disfiguration and, therefore, it was held that the award under Section 140 of the Act cannot be passed. With all respect at its command, this Court is not in agreement with the observation that Section 142 of the Act defines permanent disablement. It is only a deeming provision, in the opinion of this Court, injuries indicated in Clauses (a), (b) and (c) are deemed to have resulted in permanent disablement. (3) In decision in the case of Anjana Vs. Mangal Singh and Others, 1996 ACJ 1349, a view is taken that though there was opinion of the doctor that the claimant suffered disability of 10% but, because the disability was not falling within the categories mentioned in Section 142 of the Act, the claimant would not be entitled to compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988. (3. 1) It is not possible to agree with the view taken in that matter for the reasons stated herein above which can be reiterated that in the opinion of this Court, Section 142 of the Act is a deeming provision to show that in event, the injuries fall in (a), (b) and (c) categories, the permanent partial disablement shall be deemed to have resulted even in absence of medical evidence. The injuries stated in the said Section is not an exhaustive list of injuries resulting in permanent disability but, only illustrative in nature. (4) In decision in the case of Rajesh Vs. The injuries stated in the said Section is not an exhaustive list of injuries resulting in permanent disability but, only illustrative in nature. (4) In decision in the case of Rajesh Vs. Dalip and Others, AIR 1999 MP 66 , the question was whether, a partial disablement of 8% can be considered as permanent disablement and the answer was given in negative. In that decision, the Division Bench took a view that Section 142 illustrates permanent disablement and says that such injuries shall be deemed to have resulted in permanent partial disability if such person had suffered injury/injuries involving permanent privation of the sight of either eye or hearing of either ear or privation of any member or joint or destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint or permanent disfiguration of head or face. The Bench took a view that the emphasis is on word "permanent". The Court took a view that the intentment of the Legislature was not to award compensation mechanically in all cases of injury irrespective of whether the injuries had resulted into permanent disablement or not. Where the injury was minor causing only partial disability and not a permanent one, the injured cannot claim the fixed amount of compensation as a matter of right. The above decision, therefore, cannot help the appellant. (5) Lastly, a reliance was placed on decision of the Gauhati High Court in the case of National insurance Co. Vs. A. Asusu and Others, 2002 (2) ICC 193 (Gau), where a view is taken that compensation can be awarded under Section 140 of the Act only in case of injuries falling within the categories indicated in Section 142 of the Act. ( 11 ) APART from the above legal position discussed at set out in earlier paragraphs, if facts of the case are examined, there also it is clear that in the case on hand before this Court, there is medical evidence to show that there are fracture on 3rd and 5th ribs (right) which were malunited with over riding and callns formation. The doctor has opined that there is a permanent disability of 4% suffered by the claimant. The medical findings indicate that the vital capacity of right side lung was reduced by 10%. Thus, there is reduction in capacity (power) of lung which is certified to be of a permanent nature. The doctor has opined that there is a permanent disability of 4% suffered by the claimant. The medical findings indicate that the vital capacity of right side lung was reduced by 10%. Thus, there is reduction in capacity (power) of lung which is certified to be of a permanent nature. The injury can therefore be said to have resulted in permanent impairment of power of a member of body. "1 The appeal therefore has no merits, even if interpretation suggested by learned Advocate for the appellant is accepted. 2 The appeal is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. " ( 12 ) IN view of the fact that this appeal is found to be devoid of merits and is dismissed, the submission regarding placing the amount in fixed deposit does not require consideration. The amount deposited with the Registry of this Court shall be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith for disbursement as per the award. ( 13 ) IN view of the order passed in main appeal, Civil Application No. 6692 of 2005 does not survive and same stands disposed of accordingly. .