BHAGWATI, J.—Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 1st April, 2011 whereby the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhunjhunu, passed an interim award of Rs.50,000/- in favour of the claimants and against the appellant as also non-claimant-respondents No.4 to 6. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and carefully perused the relevant material on record, it is revealed that on 26th April, 2009, the members of one marriage party were going by a Pick-up bearing registration No.RJ-18-G-2194 from Siriyasar Khurd. The Pick-up was being driven by its driver Rajendra Singh. It is alleged that the driver, Rajendra Singh drove the Pick-up, rashly and negligently and he took a sharp turn near the School of village Siriyasar at a fast speed, as a result of which the vehicle capsized and the passengers sitting inside sustained simple and grievous injuries. It is also alleged that one Jitendra @ Jeetu died on the spot and another injured Mukesh expired on the way to S.M.S. Hospital on 27.4.th April, 2009. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant canvassed that the Insurance Co. was not liable to pay the amount of interim compensation to the claimants for the simple reason that the pick-up being goods vehicle was not insured for carrying passengers for hire or reward. Since the owner of the vehicle has committed a breach of the conditions of Insurance policy, the Tribunal ought not to have fastened the liability on the Insurance Co. even to pay the amount of 'interim compensation'. Hence, the order with regard to the payment of 'interim compensation' is arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of law and thus, the same deserves to be set aside. 4. He has cited two judgments of Apex Court rendered in the cases of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rattani & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.7399/2008 = 2009(1) CCR 192 (SC)) and United India Insurance Co. vs. Serjerao & Ors. (Appeal (Civil) 5201/2007). 5. Having reflected over the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and carefully scanned the impugned 'interim award' as also the judgments cited by him, it is made tangible at the very outset that both the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the appellant do not hold good in the instant appeal for the simple reason that in the case of United India Insurance Co. (Supra), no notice was given to the Insurance Company before passing the order of 'Interim Compensation' and in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd.(Supra), the appeal was preferred against the final award passed by the Tribunal whereas in the case on hand, the notice was given by the Tribunal to the appellant and the appellant had very much put its defence before the Tribunal. 6. Now, adverting to the facts of the instant case, I, before discussing the relevant factors, feel necessary to reproduce Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act for proper appreciation of the provisions of law, which reads thus: 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) The amount of compensation which shall be payable under sub-section (1) in respect of the death of any person shall be a fixed sum of 1[fifty thousand rupees] and the amount of compensation payable under that sub-section in respect of the permanent disablement of any person shall be a fixed sum of 2[twenty-five thousand rupees]. (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. 1[(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) regarding death or bodily injury to any person, for which the owner of the vehicle is liable to give compensation for relief, he is also liable to pay compensation under any other law for the time being in force: Provided that the amount of such compensation to be given under any other law shall be reduced from the amount of compensation payable under this section or under Sec. 163A.] 7. A bare perusal of Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act suggests that 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 thereof. 8. Sub-Section (3) of Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act contemplates that 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. Thus, both these provisions of Section 140 of Act, tangibly postulate that while passing an order with regard to interim award under Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, the claimants are not 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 owner of the vehicle or of any other person. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that since the liability under Sub-Section 1 of Section 140 of the Act had been fastened on the owner of the vehicle and not on the Insurance Company, hence, the appellant-Insurance Co. was not liable to pay the amount of 'interim award' to the claimants, yet the insurance co. has been made to pay by the Tribunal as the offending vehicle of owner was insured with the insurer. 10. was not liable to pay the amount of 'interim award' to the claimants, yet the insurance co. has been made to pay by the Tribunal as the offending vehicle of owner was insured with the insurer. 10. Now, the only crucial question which springs up for determination in the instant appeal is “When a statutory liability to pay compensation on the principle of no fault is imposed upon the owner of the offending vehicle, can the same liability be extended to the Insurance Company/ insurer u/s 140 of Motor Vehicles Act to indemnify the owner? 11. Albeit, in terms of the insurance policy, the Insurance Company may not be liable therefore, but for the purpose of Section 140 of M.V.Act, where the liability to pay compensation is to be imposed on the principle of no fault, the determination of liability on the owner of vehicle and its insurer cannot be on different footing for the very simple reason that where the death or permanent disability resulted arising out of the use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles, the owner or the owners of motor vehicle as the case may be shall be liable to pay Compensation in respect of such death or permanent disablement. For the purposes of Sec. 140 of M.V.Act the question of wrongful act, negligence or default of the owner of the vehicle is not be considered by the Tribunal. E-contra, the Tribunal is required to consider only two following things in a given case and they are- (1) whether there was a use of a motor vehicle in an accident; and (2) whether death or permanent disability resulted from that accident. 12. If these two conditions are fulfilled, the Tribunal must impose the liability to pay compensation on the principle of no fault u/s 140 of Motor Vehicles Act in favour of the claimants and against the owner of the vehicle, and if the offending vehicle is insured, the liability shall extend to the Insurance Company also for the reason that the conditions of Insurance policy are not permissible to over-ride the statute. 13. If the owner is liable and the vehicle entailed is insured with the Insurance Co. then the insurer is duty bound to pay the amount of compensation, as per the conditions of the Insurance policy. 13. If the owner is liable and the vehicle entailed is insured with the Insurance Co. then the insurer is duty bound to pay the amount of compensation, as per the conditions of the Insurance policy. The ground of wrongful act, negligence and default of the owner of the vehicle or any other person cannot be taken or agitated by the Insurance Company at this stage. 14. In the final analysis, the upshot is, when the vehicle is entailed in an accident and the vehicle is found to be insured then irrespective of any wrongful act or negligence or default of the owner of the vehicle or any other person, the owner of the vehicle is liable to pay the compensation on the principle of no fault if death or permanent disability of any person results from an accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle. In that event, the liability automatically extends to the insurer, who insured the vehicle. 15. In view of above, the instant appeal is found to be totally devoid of any force and the same being baseless, groundless and irrelevant deserves to be dismissed with exemplary cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the claimants. 16. For the reasons stated above, the appeal utterly fails and the same being bereft of any merit stands dismissed so as to costs of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the claimants.