JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed against the judgment and award dated 16-5-2011 passed by learned Judge, MACT, Malpura, Distt. Tonk in M.A.C. No. 63/2006 whereby the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition of the claimant on the ground of negligency of the injured himself and also ordered the Insurance Company to recover the amount of interim compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- awarded for non-fault liability in accordance with law. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 2-3-2006, in the evening when he was going from Sanodiya to Bhansu by Motorcycle No. 5 RJ26-3M-8109, on Kikri road, the non-2 claimant No. 1 was driving his motorcycle No. RJ01-SA-6984 with rash and negligent g manner and excessive speed and coming in 7 wrong side and collided with motorcycle of claimant, because of that claimant sustained grievous and simple injuries. The FIR was lodged against non-claimant No. 1. Thereafter claim petition was filed, notices were issued, reply was filed by the Insurance Company, remaining respondents did not appear in spite of service, four issues were framed, and after hearing all the parties, the learned Tribunal passed the impugned award dismissing the claim petition and directed the Insurance Company to recover Rs. 25,000/- which was awarded under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act to the claimant for no fault liability. Hence this appeal has been filed. 3. Mr. Vimal Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that he does not want to press the appeal, if the amount which has been paid by the Insurance Company to the claimant under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act is not recovered from him. It has also been contended that such type of order cannot be passed by the learned Tribunal while dismissing the claim petition. Aggrieved by the direction of refunding the amount of interim compensation to the Insurance Company along with interest, this appeal has been preferred. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in ( AIR 2010 SC 2913 ) Indra Devi and Ors. v. Bagada Ram and Anr. 4. Ms. Manju Jain, learned counsel for the Insurance Company does not oppose the request made above by the learned counsel for the appellant. 5. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in ( AIR 2010 SC 2913 ) Indra Devi and Ors. v. Bagada Ram and Anr. 4. Ms. Manju Jain, learned counsel for the Insurance Company does not oppose the request made above by the learned counsel for the appellant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned award, as also gone through the afore-mentioned judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is held that direction issued by learned Tribunal is clearly erroneous and unsustainable in law. The Tribunal has completely failed to realise the true nature and character of the compensation in terms of Section 140 of the Act. The marginal heading to Section 140 describes it as based 'on the principle of no fault.' As the expression 'no fault' suggests the compensation under Section 140 is regardless of any wrongful act, neglect or default of the person in respect of whose injury, the claim is made. Further this Court has examined the nature of the 'no fault compensation' pay-able under Section 140 of the Act. The Tribunal was patently in error in directing for the refund of the amount of 'no fault compensation' already paid to the claimant, to the Insurance Company. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed but with no order as to costs. The order of the Tribunal insofar as it permits the Insurance Company to recover the amount of interim compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- along with the interest from the claimant appellant is set aside.Appeal allowed. *******