1. This appeal is directed against the interim order/award dated 29.10.2011 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Reasi in a claim petition, titled as Abdul Aziz Wani & others v. Future General Insurance Co. Ltd., whereby application for grant of interim compensation in terms of Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, Act) came to be allowed and interim award of Rs. 50,000/- along with 7.5% interest came to be passed in favour of claimants-respondents 1 to 4 on account of no fault liability (for short, impugned order). 2. The ground taken by the appellant-insurer in the memo of appeal, as argued by the learned, counsel for appellant is that the defence which was available to the insurer in terms of Section 149 of the Act was not considered. Further, it is contended that the cheque issued by the owner of the offending vehicle towards the payment of premium was bounced. 3. What would be its affect on account of bouncing of the cheque, can be gone through during trial. Denial of liability by insurer to indemnify the owner with respect to the claim of third party on the ground that cheque of the owner received by the insurer company was bounced and insurance policy was cancelled would not affect the rights already accrued in favour of the third party. My this view is fortified by the judgment of Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Rula, (2000) 3 SCC 195 . This Court also in Oriental Insurance Co. v. Mohammad Akbar Ganai & Ors., 2011 (1) S.L.J. 335; 2011 (1) JKJ [HC] 551 has taken the same view. 4. It is beaten law that at the time of granting compensation on account of no fault liability, the defence adduced cannot be taken into consideration. It would be appropriate to reproduce Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act herein. "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 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 twenty-five thousand rupees. (3) In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead and established 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. (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 section 163A." 5. This provision mandates how to grant interim compensation by making interim award on the basis of no fault liability. 6. While considering the application for grant of interim compensation, the Tribunal has to take into consideration the contents contained in the claim petition, FIR, postmortem report of the police, death certificate/disability certificate and, thereafter, has to make an interim award of Rs. 50,000/- in case of death or Rs. 25,000/- in case of permanent disability. At this stage the Tribunal has not to consider other defences as available to the insurer in terms of other provisions contained in the Act. 7. My view is fortified by the judgment of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nasib Chand, 2011 (II) SLJ 623:2010 (4) JKJ HC-41. It is appropriate to reproduce paragraphs 3,6,18 & 19 herein. 7. My view is fortified by the judgment of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nasib Chand, 2011 (II) SLJ 623:2010 (4) JKJ HC-41. It is appropriate to reproduce paragraphs 3,6,18 & 19 herein. "3. The crux of the matter is whether the defence projected and taken by the appellant-insurer in terms of Section 149 of the Act can be pressed into service at the time of determination of application under Section 140 of the Act for grant of interim award on no fault liability. The answer is negative for the following reasons. 6. Claims under Section 140 of the Act cannot be defeated on the ground that the owner has committed the breach or the insurer has a defence in terms of Section 149 of the Act, which requires determination after leading evidence. 18. In terms of section 140, 141, 158(6) and 166(4) read with the Rules (supra), the Claims Tribunal is required to satisfy itself while determining the petition under section 140 of the Act in respect of the following points. i. The accident has arisen out of the use of motor vehicle; ii. The said accident resxilted in death or permanent disablement; iii. The claim is made against the owner and insurer of the motor vehicle involved in the accident. 19. The Claims Tribunal after examining the FIR and the disability certificate came to the conclusion that claimant-respondent no. 1 has prima facie established all the ingredients which are required for determination of the petition under section 140 of the Act on no fault liability. The appellant-insurer has not denied the factum of insurance. Thus it is admitted that the vehicle was insured at the relevant point of time. The Tribunal has strictly followed the procedure contained in sections 140 and 141 of the Act read with the Rules (supra)." 8. The Apex Court also in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sinitha, AIR 2012 SC 797 : 2012 (1) JKJ SC-140, has laid down the same principle. 9. In the given circumstances, the learned Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned order and saddled the insurer-appellant with the liability. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed along connected CMAs. However, any observation made hereinabove shall not prejudice the appellant in any way while contesting the main petition before the learned Tribunal. 10. 9. In the given circumstances, the learned Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned order and saddled the insurer-appellant with the liability. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed along connected CMAs. However, any observation made hereinabove shall not prejudice the appellant in any way while contesting the main petition before the learned Tribunal. 10. Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of claimants-respondents 1 to 4 strictly in terms of the conditions contained in the impugned interim order/award after proper verification and identification.