JUDGMENT : N.K. Mody, J. Being aggrieved by the interim award dated 20th January, 2011 passed by MACT, Kukshi in Claim Case No. 24/2010 whereby the application filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 6 u/s 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act was allowed and a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was awarded on account of no fault liability as interim compensation holding the appellant and respondent No. 7 liable and respondent No. 8 was exonerated, the present appeal has been filed. Short facts of the case are that a claim petition was filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 6 for compensation alleging that in a motor accident which took place on 16th January, 2010, Antarsingh died. It was alleged that offending vehicle was being driven by respondent No. 7 at the relevant time rashly and negligently which was owned by the appellant and insured with respondent No. 8. In the application filed u/s 140 of the M.V. Act it was prayed that interim compensation be awarded. The application was contested by the appellant and the respondent No. 8. After holding a preliminary enquiry learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition holding the appellant and the respondent No. 7 liable for compensation and exonerated the respondent No. 8 on the ground that since driver was not possessing the valid driving licence, therefore respondent No. 8 stands exonerated, against which the present appeal has been filed. 2. learned Counsel for appellant submits that impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal is illegal and deserves to be set aside. learned Counsel submits that it is only photostat copy of the licence which was filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 on the basis of which learned Tribunal found that respondent No. 7 was not possessing the valid driving licence. Learned Tribunal placed reliance on the decisions in the matter of National Insurance Co. v. Anappa Irappa Nesaria, 2008 (2) S.C.C. (Cr.) 99 and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Angad Kol and Others, (2009) 11 SCC 356 . learned Counsel submits that all these aspects can be looked into at the time of final adjudication of the case and not at the stage when the application u/s 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act has to be decided. learned Counsel placed reliance on a decision in the matter of National Insurance Company, Jabalpur Vs. learned Counsel submits that all these aspects can be looked into at the time of final adjudication of the case and not at the stage when the application u/s 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act has to be decided. learned Counsel placed reliance on a decision in the matter of National Insurance Company, Jabalpur Vs. Thaglu Singh and Others, (1995) ACJ 248, wherein Division Bench of this Court has observed that since it was not the plea that vehicle involved in the accident was not insured, therefore the defence available to the Insurance Company u/s 149(2) can be raised at the time of adjudicating claims under no fault liability. It was further held that otherwise it would frustrate the legislative object in introducing the concept of no-fault liability. 3. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case the appeal filed by the appellant be allowed and impugned award whereby respondent No. 8 was exonerated, be set aside. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 8 submits that since there was no endorsement which was being possessed by the respondent No. 7 to drive the transport vehicle, therefore learned Tribunal has rightly exonerated the respondent No. 8. It is submitted that appeal be dismissed. 4. Keeping in view the law laid down in the matter of National Insurance Co. v. Thaglu Singh (supra), and also keeping in view the fact that offending vehicle was insured, this Court is of the view that learned Tribunal committed error in exonerating the respondent No. 8 at the initial stage of proceedings. If the respondent No. 8 is exonerated at the initial stage while deciding the application u/s 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, then it would frustrate the legislative object in introducing the concept of no fault liability. In view of this, appeal filed by the appellant is allowed. Part of the interim award whereby respondent No. 8 has been exonerated, is set aside. Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 shall be entitled to withdraw the amount deposited by the appellant and also the amount which shall be deposited by the respondent No. 8 at the time of final adjudication. C.C. as per rules.