Order Heard the Counsel for the appellant and the Respondents-Claimants in the limitation matter. 2. In spite of service of notice, the respondent-owner of the vehicle has not appeared. The delay is of 172 days, which has sufficiently been explained. Hence limitation petition (I.A. No. 1399 of 2007) is allowed and delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. We have also heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties on merit of the appeal which is directed against the interim award dated 1 .6.2006 passed by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in Compensation Case No. 56 of 2004 whereby a sum of Rs.50,000/has been awarded as interim compensation under Section 140 of the M. V. Act. The impugned order under Section 140 of the M.V. Act was passed on 1.6.2006. 4. In the impugned order, the Tribunal has mentioned that the Insurance Company admitted that the vehicle was insured with the appellant. Subsequently a RtJview Petition was filed by the appellant for review of the earlier order on the ground, inter alia. that the policy of insurance was issued by the appellant but subsequently when the cheque, by which premium was paid, was dishonored because of insufficient fund, the appellant cancelled the policy and alleged to have intimated the owner of the vehicle. 5. Admittedly, therefore, the vehicle was insured by issuing a valid policy of insurance. The case of the appellant is that the premium which was paid by cheque was subsequently dishonored and the policy was cancelled. There is divergent opinion on this Issue. We do not wish to disclose our mind with regard to the liability of the Insurance Company. Suffice it to say that the defence taken by the Insurance Company is to be decided in the main application under Section 166 of the Act. We, therefore, do not incline to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. However, we are constrained to observe that in the event the Tribunal finally decide the liability against the owner then the appellant shall be entitled to recover the interim compensation amount together with interest @ 9% p.a. from the owner of the vehicle. 6. Mr. G.C. Jha, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that he may be permitted to withdraw the statutory amount. Prayer is allowed.