JUDGMENT : V.B. Gupta, J. 1. The present appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short as the "Act") has been filed by National Insurance Co. Ltd. against the Interim Award passed dated 05.07.07, by Sh. Dinesh Kumar Sharma, Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short as "Tribunal"), Delhi. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Sh. Rattan Singh, aged 44 years died in a road accident on 20th October 2006 while travelling in vehicle No. HR 38-M6385 (Tata 407), along with other farmers of the village. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of the offending vehicle. 3. The claimants are the legal representatives of the deceased. 4. Respondent No. 7 is the driver, Respondent No. 8 is the owner and Respondent No. 9 (in whose name the vehicle is insured). Respondent No. 7, the driver in its written statement pleaded that the accident took place on account of the negligence of one motor cycle rider who suddenly appeared in front of the vehicle being driven by him. 5. Appellant i.e. Insurance Company in its written statement has admitted that offending vehicle was insured with it. However, they denied their liability to pay the compensation on the ground that the deceased was travelling as a passenger in the alleged offending vehicle. 6. Vide impugned order, the Ld. Tribunal has granted interim compensation of Rs. 50,000/- along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization in favour of the Petitioners and against the Respondents. 7. It has been contended by Ld. Counsel for the Appellant that the Ld. Tribunal was wrong in passing the interim award of Rs. 50,000/- u/s 140 of the Act against the Insurance Company for unauthorized passenger travelling in goods vehicle in view of the latest decision of the Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vedwati and Others. 8. Section 140 of the Act provides for liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle on no fault. 9. It read as under; 140. Ltd. Vs. Vedwati and Others. 8. Section 140 of the Act provides for liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle on no fault. 9. It read as under; 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) x x x (3) In 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. 10. For getting interim relief u/s 140 of the Act, the Tribunal is only required to see primafacie the factum of accident involving the offending vehicle and factum of death of the person in the road accident. 11. The Tribunal has come to a prima facie finding that the deceased suffered fatal injuries in a road accident arising out of the use of the offending vehicle. It has also recorded the Preliminary Statement of the claimant and claimants have also placed on record a copy of F.I.R and Post-Mortem report before the Trial Court. 12. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. It has also recorded the Preliminary Statement of the claimant and claimants have also placed on record a copy of F.I.R and Post-Mortem report before the Trial Court. 12. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh and Others, the Apex Court has observed as under; In each case, on evidence led before the claim Tribunal, a decision has to be taken whether the fact of the driver possessing licence for one type of vehicle but found driving another type of vehicle, was the main or contributory cause of accident. If on facts, it is found that the accident was caused solely because of some other unforeseen or intervening causes like mechanical failures and similar other causes having no nexus with the driver not possessing requisite type of licence, the insurer will not be allowed to avoid its liability merely for technical breach of conditions concerning driving licence. 13. The contention of the Ld. Counsel for Appellant, regarding the deceased being an unauthorized passenger travelling in goods vehicle, at this stage is not sustainable, since evidence is yet to be recorded and the Trial Court has to decide whether the deceased was travelling as a passenger in the offending vehicle. 14. Thus the Insurance Company is not liable to pay, is a matter of evidence which is yet to be gone into by the Trial Court and these pleas can be raised at the time of final arguments and not at the stage of interim relief. Thus, the judgment cited by the Ld. Counsel for Appellant is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 15. There is no manner of doubt that Section 140 of the Act is a beneficial and social welfare piece of legislation. It is well settled that in construing social welfare legislation, the Courts should adopt a beneficial rule of construction and in any event, that construction should be preferred which fulfills the policy of legislation. The construction to be adopted on a statue should be such so as to achieve the purposes for which it is enacted and in favour of those in whose interest the Act has been passed. 16. The provisions contained u/s 140 of the Act were brought in the statute book to grant interim relief to the victim of an accident or his dependant/s by way of an interim compensation. 16. The provisions contained u/s 140 of the Act were brought in the statute book to grant interim relief to the victim of an accident or his dependant/s by way of an interim compensation. This obviously is a beneficial provision to give relief to a person who has suffered grievous injury or to the dependants of a victim who are left without a bread earner. The object thereof cannot be permitted to be frustrated. Of course, if the vehicle in question is not insured at all, the question of making the insurer liable would not arise. But, the insurer cannot, by raising all possible pleas, avoid payment of interim compensation and thereby defeat the object of the provision. 17. In Shanti Devi Vs. Basmatti Devi and Others, the deceased was a Khalasi on Appellant's truck and this truck met with an accident resulting in his death. The parents of the deceased filed claim petition for compensation. During the pendency of the case, they filed petition u/s 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming interim compensation. The prayer was allowed by the Patna High Court. While dealing with the question who amongst the owner and insurance company is liable to pay the interim compensation u/s 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Court referred the decision of a Division Bench of the same High Court in Kanhai Rai and Others Vs. Dharampal and Others wherein the Court has observed as under; (12) No doubt, Section 140 provides that the interim compensation is to be paid by the owner but once an insurance policy in terms of Chapter XI is in force with regard to the motor vehicle covering liability against the third party risk then by virtue of definition of liability u/s 145(c), the interim compensation is also included or covered by the said policy and the insurance company also becomes liable to pay interim compensation. If this view is not taken, the social purpose for which the provision of Section 140 was enacted will be frustrated. In many cases, there will be difficulty in passing the order of compensation against the driver or owner of the vehicle because they may not be in a position to pay the interim compensation. If this view is not taken, the social purpose for which the provision of Section 140 was enacted will be frustrated. In many cases, there will be difficulty in passing the order of compensation against the driver or owner of the vehicle because they may not be in a position to pay the interim compensation. To obviate such situation and to provide speedy help to the needy claimants, the legislature appears to have also included 'liability' u/s 140 of the Act within the definition of a liability u/s 145(c) of the Act. Thus, there is no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that once an insurance policy is in force with regard to use of motor vehicle at a public place covering liability against the third party risk then the insurer is also liable to pay the interim compensation even though he is not classified as one of the persons against whom an order can be passed u/s 140 of the Act. 18. The Court, further in Kanhai Rai(supra), held as under; (21) Thus, after considering the question involved in this appeal from different angles, I am of the considered view that the order u/s 140 of the Act can be passed against the insurer also in view of the discussions made above. If ultimately it is found at the time of final determination of the question of compensation that the insurer is not liable to pay compensation, then the insurer is not loser or remediless as an order can be passed for reimbursement of the amount from the owner as held in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jethu Ram and Others. 19. There was no occasion for the insurance company to file the present appeal. National Insurance Company Ltd., being a Government undertaking should have taken a sympathetic view in the matter and should not have filed blindly the present appeal so as to deprive the dependants of road accident victim, solace and little comfort by way of meager monetary amount which they are entitled under the law. The Government undertaking must have human approach in such like matters and should not indulge in the jugglery of legal provision so as to deprive the unfortunate victims of their legal dues. The Government undertaking must have human approach in such like matters and should not indulge in the jugglery of legal provision so as to deprive the unfortunate victims of their legal dues. It is hoped that the appellant would take special care in such like matters and would not file appeals on frivolous and flimsy grounds so as to deprive the victims of road accident who had lost their sole bread earner. 20. In the present case, appeal filed by National Insurance Co. Ltd., which is public sector undertaking, is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. Therefore, there is no scope to challenge the impugned order. 21. The present appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000/-. 22. Appellant is directed to deposit the cost by way of a cheque in the name of Registrar General of this Court within four weeks from today. 23. List on 20th August, 2008 for compliance.