JUDGMENT H.K. RATHOD, J. 1. HEARD learned Assistant Solicitor General Mr. P.S. Champaneri for petitioners. 2. IN present petition, petitioner has challenged award passed by MAC Tribunal, Kutch at Bhuj in MACP No.490 of 2007 below Exh.17 dated 10.2.2010. The respondents claimants have filed claim petition being MACP No.490 of 2007 before MAC Tribunal (Main) Kutch at Bhuj under Section 166 of MV Act because of death of husband of respondent No.1, which accident occurred on 6.11.2003 between 10.30/11.00 p.m. 3. BRIEF facts of present case are that Vehicle No.GJ-1-HH-724 Gypsy of Customs House, Jakhau, was on patrolling from Jakhau to Chhachhi, which is a very sensitive area. The deceased Dineshbhai Zala, husband of respondent No.1, was on duty patrolling and was also travelling in the said gypsy. The deceased while going from Chhachhi side to Sandhan, suddenly, the vehicle turned turtled and incident in question took place. Therefore, claim petition was preferred by claimants claiming Rs. 18,50,000/- while filing application under Section 166 of the MV Act. The deceased had died because of receiving injury in accident occurred on 6.11.2003 at night having injury on both hands, legs, head, chest and other part of the body as per PM report. During pendency of application u/S.166 of the Act, claimants have filed application u/S.140 of the Act for receiving compensation of Rs.50,000/- on the basis of 'no fault liability' which has been exhibited at Exh.17 before claims Tribunal and said application was preferred on 20.11.2009 which has been decided by claims Tribunal on 10.2.2010. 4. LEARNED Assistant Solicitor General Mr. P.S. Champaneri raised contention before this Court that written statement which was filed by petitioner before claims Tribunal has not been considered and service benefits because of death of husband of respondent No.1 which has been paid to family immediately of Rs. 1,46,018/- and family pension amount is determined at Rs.2,280/- per month and in all, immediate relief has been provided by petitioners to respondent No.1 and therefore, claimants are not entitled any amount under Section 140 of the Act. Learned Assistant Solicitor General Mr. P.S. Champaneri has raised contentions before this Court as raised in written statement in Para.4 and 5 which is quoted as under : "4. Learned Assistant Solicitor General Mr. P.S. Champaneri has raised contentions before this Court as raised in written statement in Para.4 and 5 which is quoted as under : "4. It is submitted that the Central Government has granted exemption to the vehicle belonging to Central Government from compulsory Family Pension given Rs.2,280/- per month (Rs.1520/- Basic Pay + Rs.760/- 50% DA merged) Insurance vide Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance O.M.No.F.1 (62)-E II (A)/ 62, dated 07th February, 1963 and as such Gypsy Motor Vehicle No.GJ-1- HH-724 owned by Department was exempted from compulsory Insurance against third party by virtue of sub Section (2) of Section 94 of MV Act vide number quoted above. Accordingly, the Govt. is not responsible for any compensation as immunity is granted to the Govt. and also sovereign act of Govt. which is not liable to compensation. 5.With reference to para 1 to 5 of the petition, as per the Service Records name of deceased was Zala Dinesh Natubhai and whose date of birth as shown in the Service Records is 01.06.1973. It is not denied that applicant No.1 happens" to be wife of deceased as her stands in Service. Records as a nominee of deceased who has been paid following emoluments in full as a nominee, however, details regarding her date of birth is not available. I have considered submissions made by learned Assistant Solicitor General Mr. P.S. Champaneri and also perused the order passed by claims Tribunal. Relevant discussion made in Para. 5 to 8 are quoted as under :- "5. Herein the present case, I have considered the written statement of the opposite side and the contentions of the same. Moreover, the points which are raised by the opponents in the written statement required to be proved by it even prima facie by producing documentary evidence. But the opponent has not produced any rebuttal documentary evidence in support of the defence raises in the written argument, which is considered. 6. I have considered the documents produced and prima facie involvement of the deceased, who sustained injuries in the present accident, which resulted into death, involvement of the vehicle and ownership of the vehicle by the opponents, are established. 7. 6. I have considered the documents produced and prima facie involvement of the deceased, who sustained injuries in the present accident, which resulted into death, involvement of the vehicle and ownership of the vehicle by the opponents, are established. 7. I have also considered the provisions of Sec.140 of the MV Act, the citation 1995 (2) GLR 1111 , for the points which are required to be established at the time of application under Sec. 140 of the MV Act and the citation 2008 AC J 930, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corp. v. M. Ramadevi and others, decided on 25.1.08, for the interest at the rate of 9% p.a. 8. It is submitted by Ld. Advocate for the applicants that the deceased sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries and thus present applicants have spent huge amount towards funeral expenses as well as other religious rites. Considering the submission of Ld. Advocate for the applicants as well as looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, this is a case of death of the deceased and looking to the death certificate and cause of death, it appears that the applicants must have incurred some amount for funeral as well as other expenses and therefore, it will be in the interest of justice to release some amount to the applicants by way of an Account Payee Cheque and major part of the award be invested in a Nationalized Bank in the name of the present applicants." 5. IN view of above observations made by claims Tribunal and contentions raised by learned Assistant The last salary drawn for the month of October, 2003 is as Rs.5,131/- (Rupees five thousand one hundred thirty one only) and accordingly, the amount of salary which is stated to Rs.6,500/- (Rupees six thousand five hundred only) is not correct. It is not denied that the deceased died in this accident while on duty and the Department also is very sorry to loose its one of the staff member in his young age and whatever best was possible in official capacity and on humanitarian ground, the entire office had extended all possible help to the deceased and his family and continue to render same as and when help is sought." Solicitor General Mr. P.S. Champaneri, the question is that when service benefits including family pension given to claimants by petitioners immediately because of death of employee husband of respondent No.1 in accident then as to whether claims Tribunal has jurisdiction to grant interim compensation under Section 140 of the MV Act in case of death of any person in road accident or not ? This aspect has been recently considered by Apex Court in case of Eshwarappa alias Maheshwarappa and Anr. v. C. S. Gurushanthappa and Anr., reported 2010 AIR SCW 4918. Relevant discussion made by Apex Court are in Para. 15 to 18 which is quoted as under : "15. Seen in isolation the above provisions might appear harsh, unreasonable and arbitrary in as much as these create the liability of the vehicle(s) owner(s) even where the accident did not take place due to any wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner or owners of the vehicle or vehicles concerned but entirely due to the wrongful act, neglect or default of the person in respect of whose death or permanent disablement the claim has been made but the above provisions must be seen along with certain provisions of Chapter XI. Section 146 forbids the use of the vehicle in a public place unless there is in force, in relation to the use of the vehicle, a policy of Insurance complying with the provisions of that chapter. Section 147 contains the provisions that are commonly referred to as Act only Insurance'. The provisions of Sections 146 and 147 are meant to create the large pool of money for making payments of no fault compensation. Thus the liability arising from Section 140 would almost invariably be passed on to the insurer to be paid off from the vast fund created by virtue of Sections 146 and 147 of the Act unless the owner of the vehicle causing accident is guilty of some flagrant violation of the law. 16. Seen thus, the provisions of chapter X together with Sections 146 and 147 would appear to be in furtherance of the public policy that in case of death or permanent disablement of any person resulting from a motor accident a minimum amount must be paid to the injured or the heirs of the deceased, as the case may be, without any questions being asked and independently of the compensation on the principle of fault. 17. 17. The provisions of Section 140 are indeed intended to provide immediate succour to the injured or the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased. Hence, normally a claim under Section 140 is made at the threshold of the proceeding and the payment of compensation under Section 140 is directed to be made by an interim award of the Tribunal which may be adjusted if in the final award the claimants are held entitled to any larger amounts. But that does not mean, that in case a claim under Section 140 was not made at the beginning of the proceedings due to the ignorance of the claimant or no direction to make payment of the compensation under Section 140 was issued due to the oversight of the Tribunal, the door would be permanently closed. Such a view would be contrary to the legal provisions and would be opposed to the public policy. 18. In light of the discussions made above, we are unhesitatingly of the view, that the Tribunal was completely wrong in denying to the appellant, the compensation in terms of Section 140 of the Act. We find and hold that the appellant (as well as the other 3 claimants) were fully entitled to no fault compensation under Section 140 of the Act. We, accordingly, direct the Insurance Company to pay to the appellant Rs.25,000/- along with simple interest @ 6% p.a. From the date of the order of the Tribunal till the date of payment. The other 3 claimants are not before this Court, but that is presumably because they are too poor to come to this Court. Since, we have allowed the claim of the appellants, there is no reason why this order should not be extended to the other 3 claimants as well. We, accordingly, do so. The Insurance Company is directed to make the payment as directed in this judgment within 3 months." 7.1 Thereafter also, aforesaid decision has also been considered in a subsequent decision rendered by Apex Court in case of Indra Devi and Ors. v. Bagada Ram and Anr., reported in 2010 AIR SCW 4924. Relevant discussion made by Apex Court are in Para.4 to 6 which is quoted as under : "4. The claimants are now before this Court aggrieved by the direction to refund the amount of interim compensation to the Insurance Company alongwith interest. 5. v. Bagada Ram and Anr., reported in 2010 AIR SCW 4924. Relevant discussion made by Apex Court are in Para.4 to 6 which is quoted as under : "4. The claimants are now before this Court aggrieved by the direction to refund the amount of interim compensation to the Insurance Company alongwith interest. 5. The impugned direction is clearly erroneous and unsustainable in law. The Tribunal has completely failed to realize the true nature and character of the compensation in terms of Section 140 of the Act. The marginal heading to Section 140 describes it as based 'on the principle of no fault'. As the expression 'no fault' suggests the compensation under Section 140 is regardless of any wrongful act, neglect or default of the person in respect of whose death the claim is made. 6. We have examined the nature of the 'no fault compensation' payable under Section 140 of the Act in Eshwarappa @ Maheshwarappa and Anr. v. C.S. Gurushanthappa and Anr. (Civil Appeal No.7049 of 2002), the judgment in which is pronounced today. We, therefore, do not wish to elaborate the point further. Suffice to say that in view of our judgment in Civil Appeal No.7049 of 2002, the Tribunal was patently in error, in directing for the refund of the amount of "no fault compensation' already paid to the claimants, to the Insurance Company. The High Court was equally in error in missing out this grave mistake in the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal and not setting it right." 6. IN view of above observations made by Apex Court in recent two decisions where it is held that interim compensation which required to be paid to the claimants under Section 140 of the MV Act is must and even in case when claim petition is dismissed, claimants are entitled compensation under Section 140 of the MV Act under 'no fault liability'. The ingredients of Sections 140 and 141 of MV Act must have to be established for getting compensation by claimants. If that has been established, then claimants are entitled benefit of compensation under Section 140 of MV Act irrespective of result of claim petition filed by claimants. The ingredients of Sections 140 and 141 of MV Act must have to be established for getting compensation by claimants. If that has been established, then claimants are entitled benefit of compensation under Section 140 of MV Act irrespective of result of claim petition filed by claimants. The payment which has been made by petitioner to claimants because of service rendered by deceased, that service benefit cannot be adjusted against the payment of compensation which is statutorily available to claimants under Section 140 of MV Act. Whatever payment has been made by petitioner including family pension cannot be adjusted against relief of granting interim compensation in favour of claimants. The service benefit is a part of service rendered by deceased which has nothing to do with accident claim made by claimants before claims Tribunal. It is not case of petitioners before claims Tribunal and before this Court that aforesaid service benefits paid to claimants against claim petition filed by claimants. The petitioners have not paid single pie to claimants because of death occurred of husband of respondent No.1 in accident. No claim paid against death occurred due to accident. The service benefits are paid under provisions of statutory service rules which binding to petitioners. No amount paid by petitioners to claimants under provisions of MV Act, 1939. Therefore, contentions raised by learned Assistant Solicitor General Mr. P.S. Champaneri cannot be accepted. According to my opinion, claims Tribunal has rightly examined matter and during pendency of application u/S.166 of MV Act, in case of death of husband of respondent No. 1 the claimants are entitled Rs,50,000/- as interim compensation from respondents including present petitioners and claimants have satisfied ingredients of Sections 140/141 of MV Act for receiving such compensation from respondents. Therefore, according to my opinion, MAC Tribunal, Kutch at Bhuj has not committed any error while passing aforesaid award which is under challenge which requires interference by this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, there is no substance in present petition. Accordingly, present petition is dismissed.