Judgment ( 1. ) THIS order shall also govern the disposal of M. A. Nos. 1874, 1875, 1876, 1902, 1903, 1904, 1905 and 2590 of 2006, as in all the appeals the impugned award is dated 31. 3. 2006, whereby motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alirajpur, in different claim cases, which were arising out of one accident allowed the application filed by the claimants under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, but exonerated the respondent No. 3 insurance company herein. ( 2. ) MR. Manish Jain and Mr. Mayank upadhyay, who are counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3, i. e. , owner and insurance company are directed to make appearance in all the cases. Counsel for appellants is directed to supply memo of appeal and the impugned order to the counsel for respondents. ( 3. ) SHORT facts of the case are that a motor accident took place on 2. 4. 2005 by a matador, bearing registration No. GJ 6-U 7183 which was driven by respondent No. 1, owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3, in the said accident members of the family of the claimants died, hence the claim petitions were filed by the claimants, who are the appellants herein. Along with claim petition an application was filed under section 140 of the motor Vehicles Act for an interim award on account of no fault liability. ( 4. ) THE application was contested by the respondent No. 3. After hearing the parties learned Claims Tribunal vide order dated 31. 3. 2006, passed interim award, whereby respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000 on account of no fault liability and the application was dismissed against respondent No. 3. Being aggrieved by this part of the order, whereby the application was dismissed against the respondent No. 3, the present appeal has been filed. ( 5. ) MR. T. C. Jain, learned counsel for the appellants submits that undisputedly the vehicle was insured and the accident occurred for which complaint was lodged, which was registered as Crime No. 404 of 2005 at Police Station, Kukshi. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Tribunal committed error in dismissing the application, on the ground that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have committed breach of policy condition. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Tribunal committed error in dismissing the application, on the ground that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have committed breach of policy condition. Learned counsel submits that at the stage of interim award the respondent No. 3 cannot be exonerated on this ground. For this contention reliance was placed by the learned counsel in the matter of National insurance Co. Ltd. v. Thaglu Singh, 1995 acj 248 (MP), wherein a Divisional Bench of this court has observed that: "the statutory scheme envisages that if there is a motor accident and death or permanent disablement results from such an accident, owner or owners of the vehicle or vehicles involved shall be liable to pay the prescribed compensation without proof of negligence and irrespective of any contributory negligence of the deceased or the injured and the amount so paid has to be adjusted out of the compensation found due under the final award. There is no provision requiring the recipient of compensation of no fault liability to refund any part of the amount received at any stage. The legislative intent is to ensure that some succour reaches the victim or the dependants without going into the questions which may arise for consideration while passing the final award. In these cases, there is no contention that the vehicles involved in the accident are not covered by policies. There is also no dispute that the vehicles were involved in accidents and death followed as consequence of the accidents. The Tribunal was, therefore, justified in directing the insurance companies to pay compensation on the basis of no fault liability. If ultimately, in passing the final award, it is found that the insurer has no liability with regard to persons who sustained injuries, fatal or otherwise, the Tribunal may issue appropriate directions for reimbursement of the amount from the owner (s) of the vehicle (s ). " ( 6. ) FURTHER reliance was placed in the matter of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Annamma Abrahim, 1995 ACJ 1189 (MP), wherein a Full Bench of this court has observed that "the applicability of the conditions to the given facts is foreign to the scope of inquiry in relation to claim under section 140 of the Act". ( 7. ) FURTHER reliance was placed in the matter of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Annamma Abrahim, 1995 ACJ 1189 (MP), wherein a Full Bench of this court has observed that "the applicability of the conditions to the given facts is foreign to the scope of inquiry in relation to claim under section 140 of the Act". ( 7. ) FURTHER reliance was placed on the decision of this court in the matter of New india Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Dayali, 2000 acj 295 (MP), wherein it was held that "where the insurance company admits the accident and the vehicle is covered under the policy, the insurance company could not raise defence at the time of grant of interim award under no fault liability that vehicle was driven in breach of terms of policy or either the driver or owner committed violation of terms of policy". ( 8. ) LEARNED counsel submits that in view of the aforesaid settled positions of law, learned Tribunal committed error in dismissing the application filed under section 140 of the Act, against respondent No. 3. ( 9. ) MR. Mayank Upadhyay, the learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that offending vehicle was goods vehicle while at the time of accident it was carrying passengers. It is submitted that since the terms and conditions of the policy have been violated by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 therefore, respondent No. 3, insurance company is not liable for payment of interim award. Learned counsel further submits that even if the insurance company complies with the interim award and deposits the amount then at the time of passing of the final award it will be difficult, rather to say impossible for respondent No. 3 to recover the amount from the appellants. This aspect of the case has been examined by the divisional Bench of this court in the case of Thaglu Singh, 1995 ACJ 248 (MP) and this court had observed that permitting the insurer at that stage to raise any defence other than that there is no insurance policy in force at the relevant time or to raise the statutory defences contemplated in the succeeding chapter would be to frustrate the legislative object in introducing the concept of no fault liability. The insurer is duly protected inasmuch as if ultimately in the final award the insurer is exonerated, the Tribunal can issue appropriate direction enabling the insurer to collect the same from the owner of the vehicle. This could be the only legitimate conclusion to be drawn from the peremptory language of section 92-A of the 1939 Act or section 140 of the 1988 Act. ( 10. ) IN view of this, the apprehension made by respondent No. 3 is not tenable, learned Tribunal committed error in rejecting application against respondent No. 3. ( 11. ) THUS, appeal stands allowed. Impugned interim award is set aside in part to the extent whereby application filed by the appellant has been dismissed, against respondent No. 3, with a further direction that respondent No. 3 shall also be liable to pay the amount awarded to the appellant under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles act. No order as to costs. Appeal allowed.