Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants. No one appears on behalf of respondents no.5 and 6, although several notices had been sent to them which were found to have been validly served. Respondents no.1 to 4 (claimants) have appeared through their counsel who submits that the claimants are suffering due to the fight between the insurer and the insured and that he must be paid the compensation amount by either of them in accordance with law urgently. 2. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the Divisional Manager of the United India Insurance Company Limited against order dated 23.07.2001 passed in Claim Case No. 147 of 1996 by which the 1st Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Muzaffarpur, allowed the petition of the claimants under the provision of Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake brevity) and directed the Insurance Company (appellant) to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000.00 to the claimants as ad-interim compensation. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the owner of the vehicle applied for its insurance, whereupon cover note dated 03.05.1996 (annexure-1) was issued clearly mentioning its validity up to 02.06.1996 as the premium was given by the owner by cheque. Learned counsel for the appellants further states that regular insurance policy is issued by the Insurance Company only after the premium is received in the account of the Insurance Company which did not happen in the instant case as no premium was received in the account of the Insurance Company as the cheque submitted by the owner of the vehicle bounced, and accordingly the validity of the said cover note automatically stood cancelled and no regular policy was issued, nor any insurance policy was taken by the owner of the vehicle. Reference in that regard is made to a decision of the Bombay High Court in case of Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Panvel Industrial Cooperative Estates Ltd., reported in 1992 ACJ 503 (paragraph 9). 4. Learned counsel for the appellants also avers that the accident in question, in which husband of claimant no. 1 and father of claimant nos. 3 and 4 died, took place on 06.11.1996 much after the expiry of the period of cover note, i.e. 02.06.1996 and hence the appellant-Insurance Company was not liable to make any such payment. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants also avers that the accident in question, in which husband of claimant no. 1 and father of claimant nos. 3 and 4 died, took place on 06.11.1996 much after the expiry of the period of cover note, i.e. 02.06.1996 and hence the appellant-Insurance Company was not liable to make any such payment. He further submits that this objection was specifically raised by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal, which is apparent from the impugned order itself, but the learned Court below did not consider the same and passed the impugned order only on the assumption that adinterim compensation under Section 140 of the Act is usually granted on no fault liability basis. Learned counsel for the appellants also states that prior to the impugned order no notice was issued to the owner of the vehicle (opposite party No.1 in the Court below) and notice was sent to the said owner only after passing of the impugned order as is apparent from the order sheets. 5. Section 140 is provided under Chapter X of the Act which relates to no fault liability and it has been specifically mentioned therein that the said liability is of the owner of the vehicle, whereas the insurer has not even been mentioned in the said provision. Section 145 is under Chapter XI of the Act with respect to insurance and clauses (c) and (d) thereof specifically provide that it is applicable only when there is valid insurance policy. In the said circumstances, the prime liability under the provision of Sec. 140 of the Act is of the owner and only when he is able to show that the vehicle was insured at the time of accident, the liability shifts upon the Insurance Company. 6. A Division Bench of the then Ranchi Bench of this Court in case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. V/s. Mohiuddin Kureshi @ Md. Moya & ors., 1994 1 PLJR 79 has dealt with no fault liability under the provision of Section 140 of the Act in detail and has held that an order u/s. 140 of the Act is an award and hence objection can be raised and decided by the Court passing an order under Section 140 of the Act. Moya & ors., 1994 1 PLJR 79 has dealt with no fault liability under the provision of Section 140 of the Act in detail and has held that an order u/s. 140 of the Act is an award and hence objection can be raised and decided by the Court passing an order under Section 140 of the Act. In the said circumstances, the objection, which was already filed by the appellant (Insurance Company) in the Tribunal, should not have been ignored by the Tribunal which should have considered it while passing the impugned order passed u/s. 140 of the Act, but it is quite apparent from the impugned order itself that the appellants objection was not at all considered and he was directed to pay the amount merely because it was a case of no fault liability. 7. It is also apparent from the record that the owner of the vehicle had neither appeared nor was heard by the Court below while passing the impugned order, rather notices were sent to him only after the impugned order was passed although under the provision of Sec. 140 of the Act he was a necessary party to be heard for the purposes before passing any such order. 8. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is found that the impugned order of the Tribunal is accordingly set aside with a direction to the Tribunal to reconsider the entire matter in detail in accordance with specific provisions of law after hearing all the parties concerned including the owner of the vehicle. However, if he does not appear in the case even after valid service of notice the matter has to be decided ex parte against him. The Tribunal is also directed to dispose of the instant matter within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 9. With the aforesaid observations/directions, this Miscellaneous . 10. This appellants are permitted to withdraw the amount deposited by them u/s. 173 of the Act at the time of filing of this Miscellaneous Appeal.