Shafiq Ahmad Sheikh (for short the deceased) on 30. 4 .2010 was trav­eling by a TATA-407, Mini Bus bearing registration No. JK01D-0537 (for short the offending vehicle), which was on its way towards Bemina. At a place called Batmaloo, offending vehicle was at­tacked by a mob of stone pelters and subjected to stone pelting. One of the stones hit the deceased who sustained head injury and died in the result. Respondents 1 & 2, claiming to be the dependents of the deceased, preferred a claim for compensation under sec­tion 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short the Act) before the Motor Acci­dents Claims Tribunal, Budgam. They also preferred 'no fault' liability claim under section 140 of the Act for interim compensation. They alleged that the accident leading to death of the de­ceased had occurred due to negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle as he had preferred a route which was prone to stone pelting. Appellant, who is insurer of the offending vehicle, is contesting the claims contending inter alia that death of the deceased had taken place due to stone pelting and not due to an accident caused by the offending vehicle so the claim under section 166 of the Act was not main­tainable. 2. The Tribunal by its order passed on 22.02.2012 allowed the 'no fault' liability claim and awarded Rs. 50, 000/ with 6 per cent interest as interim compensation to the claimants to be paid by the appellant-Insurance com­pany. Appellant in this appeal has impugned the order dated 22.02.2012 on the grounds taken in the memo of ap­peal. 3. Heard learned counsel for the par­ties and perused the record. 4. A bare look on the contentions made in memo of appeal and argu­ments adduced in support thereof by Id. appellant's counsel would give an im­pression as if claim for compensation under section 140 of the Act is an off­shoot of the claim under section 166 of the Act and can be awarded only if the accident is found to have occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. appellant's counsel would give an im­pression as if claim for compensation under section 140 of the Act is an off­shoot of the claim under section 166 of the Act and can be awarded only if the accident is found to have occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. It is apt in this re­gard to refer to paragraph 2 (b) of the memo of appeal, where it is stated: "the claimants have filed the claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act and as such they have to establish the negligence of the driver of the insured vehicle" and that "in the present ease also the driver was in no way negligent in driving the vehicle". It is further contended in paragraph 2(c) that death of the deceased had occurred due to stone pelting and no accident was caused by the offending vehicle, there­fore, claim for compensation was not maintainable. It is, however, important to note in this context that the appeal memo is silent as to why compensa­tion in terms of section 140 of the Act is not payable to the claimants. 5. Reiterating the appellant's stand, Id. appellant's counsel would say that since death of the deceased had oc­curred due to stone pelting and not be­cause of accident having occurred due to negligence of the driver of the offend­ing vehicle, the claim under Section 166 of the Act is not maintainable and therefore, interim compensation under Section 140 of the Act too could not have not been awarded. In support, Id. counsel relied upon decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National In­surance Company Ltd. v. Jethu Ram and others, 1998 ACJ 921 and Surinder Kumar Arora and another versus Dr. Manoj Bisla and others, 2012 STPL (Web) 202 SC. 6. In reply, Id. counsel for the respon­dents would say that compensation under Section 140 of the Act is inde­pendent of the claim under Section 166 and is awarded on the principle of 'no fault' liability. 7. It needs to be stated, as it is un­questionable, that claim for compensa­tion under section 140 of the Act is in­dependent of the claim under section 166 of the Act. 7. It needs to be stated, as it is un­questionable, that claim for compensa­tion under section 140 of the Act is in­dependent of the claim under section 166 of the Act. A claim for compensa­tion under section 166 of the Act fol­lows the principal of tortious liability and to secure compensation under this section the claimants are required to establish that the accident involving death or injuries, as the case may be, had occurred due to negligence, wrong­ful act or default of the owner or the driver of the vehicle. As against this, a claim for compensation under sec­tion 140 of the Act is based on the prin­ciple of 'no fault' liability of the owner of the vehicle and is provided only in a case of death or permanent disability as immediate interim relief to the claimants without requiring them to plead or establish that the accident had occurred due to wrongful act, negli­gence or default of the driver or the owner of the vehicle. What is required to be shown for securing compensation under section 140 of the Act is that death or the permanent disability, as the case may be, had resulted from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle. There is thus no scope for confusing the two claims with each other and no such confusion can be entertained. Though generally com­pensation under section 140 of the Act is called as interim compensation but it should not be construed as interim to claim under section 166 as they are two different claims. It is basically 'no fault' liability compensation and in­terim compensation in the sense that it is paid pending inquiry in the claim petition under Section 166, if pre­ferred, and is finally adjusted in that claim. 8. Having stated the legal position thus, the next question arising in this appeal is, whether the Id. Tribunal has fallen into an error by awarding interim compensation to the claimants as con­tended by the appellant on the ground that no accident had occurred due to the negligence of the driver. 9. It be restated here that according to the claimants the deceased was trav­eling by the offended vehicle, which came under the stone pelting leading to death of the deceased. Ld. 9. It be restated here that according to the claimants the deceased was trav­eling by the offended vehicle, which came under the stone pelting leading to death of the deceased. Ld. Tribunal has looked into the material in support of this contention produced by the claimants and the contention has not been disputed in this appeal. Claimants have alleged that the offending vehicle got involved under stone pelting as the driver had chosen a route which was prone to stone pelting. The correctness of this allegation would come up for con­sideration during enquiry in claim un­der Section 166 of the Act where the claimants would be required to estab­lish the same by leading the evidence. However, for the purpose of claim un­der Section 140 of the Act, which is based on the principle of "no fault' li­ability it can be said as it suffices to say that the death of the deceased has resulted from the accident involving use of the offending vehicle. Ld. Tri­bunal, therefore, was right in holding the claimants entitled to 'no fault' li­ability compensation and granting in­terim compensation under section 140 of the Act. 10. Authorities relied upon by Id. appellant's counsel are distinguishable having no application to the present case. In Jethu Ram's case, perusal of the judgment would show that the in­surer was not found liable to pay com­pensation under the policy of insur­ance and in that case Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that it was not liable to pay the 'no fault' liability compensation as well. Here in this case, liability of the insurance company, that is, the ap­pellant under the policy of insurance, subject however, to proof of legal de­fences available under the Act, is not disputed so the appellant cannot escape liability to pay the interim compensa­tion. 11. Judgment in the Surinder Kumar Arora's case has nothing as regards a claim under Section 140 of the Act though it states and reiterates that in a claim under section 166 of the Act, negligence on the part of the driver or owner is required to be proved as against a claim under section 163-A of the Act, which provides for a structural formula for paying compensation in a case of death or permanent disability without calling upon the claimants to establish any negligence or default on the part of the owner or driver of the vehicle. 12. 12. For all what has been stated and discussed above, order passed by the Id. Tribunal does not suffer from any er­ror or illegality. 13. The appeal filed by the appellant is, therefore, dismissed as without any merit. Record of the Tribunal be remit­ted back along with a copy of this or­der.