JUDGMENT 1. - The National Insurance Co. Ltd. is aggrieved by the interim award dated 25.2.2013 passed by the MACT, Khetri, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted an interim award of Rs. 50,000/- along with interest to the claimants-respondents no. 1 to 5. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 14.11.2011, Chhaju Ram was returning back home after attending a marriage. He was travelling in a jeep, bearing Registration No. RJ-09-C-4326. While the jeep was being driven, suddenly, a blue bull (Neel Gaai) jumped across the road in front of the jeep. While trying to prevent the collision between the jeep and the animal, the jeep fell from a bridge (Pulia). Consequently, Chhaju Ram sustained injuries. Subsequently, he expired. Since, the claimants lost their sole bread earner, they filed a claim petition under Section 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. By order dated 25.2.2013, the learned Tribunal has granted them interim award of Rs. 50,000/-. Hence, this appeal before this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant Company has vehemently raised the following contentions:- Firstly, the accident did not occur due to the negligence of the driver, but occurred due to the fact that suddenly an animal had come in front of jeep. Since, prima facie, the negligence is not apparent, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the interim award. Secondly, that the policy taken out for offending vehicle was an Act only policy. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable for the default of a passenger. Thirdly, it is for the claimant to prima facie establish a case of negligence before they are entitled to an interim award from the Insurance Company. Fourthly, even the police has not found any negligence on the part of the driver. For it has neither recorded a FIR, nor submitted a challan against the driver of the offending vehicle. Lastly, initially it is the duty of the owner of the offending vehicle to pay the interim award and not the responsibility of the Insurance Company. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the interim award. 5. It is true that in petition under Section 166, the claimants would be required to establish, through probability, the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. However, they cannot be expected to establish the said fact at the preliminary stage of interim award. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the interim award. 5. It is true that in petition under Section 166, the claimants would be required to establish, through probability, the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. However, they cannot be expected to establish the said fact at the preliminary stage of interim award. After all, the question whether the driver was negligent or not, would ultimately depend upon the evidence marshaled out before the Tribunal during the proceed. Therefore, it is too early in the proceed for the Insurance Company to plead that there is no negligence on the part of the driver. 6. Whether the policy is an Act only policy, or a comprehensive policy can also be decided after the policy has been proven by the Insurance Company and admitted in evidence. At the present moment, the policy has merely been tendered into evidence. It has not been proven by a witness. Therefore, presently, the Tribunal cannot look into policy. Therefore, the contention that the policy would ipso facto absolve the Insurance Company of its liability to pay the interim award cannot be accept at the moment. 7. Merely, because the police has not filed a charge-sheet against the offending driver would also not absolve the Insurance Company of its liability to pay the interim award. For, the conclusion of the police is not binding on any court. Therefore, the fact that the police has not filed a charge-sheet does not necessarily establish the lack of negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. 8. The Insurance Company is liable to pay the interim award as would have been paid by the insured. Of course, in case the Insurance Company were to succeed in establishing its objections through cogent evidence, it would be free to realise the said amount from the owner. However, the right of recovery can be bestowed only after the final adjudication of the claim petition. Hence, presently, the Insurance Company is unjustified in claiming that the burden to pay the interim award lies on the shoulder of the owner, and not on its own shoulders. 9. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in the appeal; the same is dismissed.Appeal Dismissed *******