JUDGMENT Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). This appeal is instituted against interim award dated 6.1.2014 rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Chamba in MAC No. 29/2013. 2. Pertinent facts necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that the respondents-claimants have filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. According to them on 25.4.2013, Shri Krishan Chand having monthly income of Rs.9,000/-per month, aged about 22 years, was travelling in the vehicle in question bearing registration No. HP-73-0833. It met with an accident. Shri Krishan Chand died. Thereafter, FIR No. 35/2013 dated 25.4.2013 was registered at Police Station Tissa, District Chamba. According to the averments contained in the FIR, the driver of the vehicle caused accident due to high speed. The claimants were dependent on Krishan Chand. They have claimed Rs.20.00 Lakh. They also filed an application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 alongwith petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for the grant of interim award. It was registered as MAC No. 29/2013. They have placed on record copy of FIR dated 25.4.2013, post-mortem report, copy of pariwar register, copy of fitness certificate, copy of RC and insurance cover note. 3. The appellant-insurance company has filed reply to the main petition as well as to the application. The insurance company took a specific stand that the driver of the vehicle, i.e. respondent No.4, was not holding a valid and effective driving licence. Respondent No.3 had contravened the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 4. Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal allowed the application on 6.1.2014 and awarded interim compensation of Rs.50,000/-to the claimants in equal shares under “No Fault Liability” under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is apparent from the record that vehicle was insured with the appellant w.e.f. 28.11.2012 to 27.11.2013. The accident has taken place on 25.4.2013, during the period of policy. The application filed by the claimants was duly supported by an affidavit. There is neither any illegality nor any infirmity in the order dated 6.1.2014, whereby a sum of Rs.50,000/-has been awarded to the claimants as interim compensation on account of “no fault liability”. 5. Mr. Aman Sood has vehemently argued that the amount paid under “no fault liability” be ordered to be adjusted at the time of final award. There is neither any illegality nor any infirmity in the order dated 6.1.2014, whereby a sum of Rs.50,000/-has been awarded to the claimants as interim compensation on account of “no fault liability”. 5. Mr. Aman Sood has vehemently argued that the amount paid under “no fault liability” be ordered to be adjusted at the time of final award. This plea is contrary to the dicta of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 6. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Eshwarappa and another vs. C.S. Gurushanthapa and another, 2010 ACJ 2444 have held as under: “3. The heirs of the four occupants of the car, dying in the accident (including the present appellants) and the fifth passenger suffering injuries in the accident sought compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Their claims proved to be equally barren. 4. The appellants took the matter in appeal before the High Court where they were equally unsuccessful. They are now in appeal before this Court by special leave. 5. The counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants raised a very limited issue. He submitted that in any event the appellants were entitled to the `no fault compensation' as provided under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 but they were denied even that by the Tribunal for reasons that are totally unsustainable in law. 6. We are, therefore, required to see how and why the appellants were denied compensation under section 140 of the Act and how far the denial was justified. The appellants filed a claim petition (MVC 1404/92) before the District Judge and MACT, Chitrandurga under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation for the death of Nagaraj. The appellants' petition, along with four other claim petitions (filed by the heirs of the other three occupants dying in that car accident and the fifth occupant who suffered injuries in that accident), was disposed of by the Tribunal by a common order dated May 9, 1996. From the order of the Tribunal, it appears that in four of the five cases before it, including MVC 1404/92, IAs were filed seeking interim compensation of rupees twenty five thousand (Rs.25,000.00) only (as the law stood at that time) in terms of section 140 of the Act. From the order of the Tribunal, it appears that in four of the five cases before it, including MVC 1404/92, IAs were filed seeking interim compensation of rupees twenty five thousand (Rs.25,000.00) only (as the law stood at that time) in terms of section 140 of the Act. For some reason, however, no order was passed on the IAs and the Tribunal proceeded to examine the claimants' claim on merits under section 166 of the Act. 7. The Tribunal, in its order summarized the cases of each of the five claimants separately, noting the facts peculiar to the four deceased and the fifth injured occupant of the ill fated car. It also framed the issues arising in each case separately. In regard to Nagaraj, the son of the appellants, it noted that at the time of his death he was eighteen years old. According to the appellants, he worked at a sweetmeat stall and earned rupees eight hundred (Rs.800.00) only per month. He was going to Anjaneya temple in the car being driven by Basavaraj and in the accident he died on the spot. The appellants claimed compensation of rupees one lakh (Rs.1,00,000.00) only. In his case the Tribunal framed four issues which are as under: 1. Whether the petitioners prove that Nagaraj died due to injuries sustained in a motor accident that occurred on 28.10.92 at 11:45pm near Bheemasamudra Cross on Holalkere road due to rash and negligent driving of the car MYG 1624 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioners prove that they are the legal representatives of Nagaraj, the deceased and are entitled to compensation? 3. What is the quantum of compensation to which the petitioners are entitled and from which of the respondents? 4. Whether the respondents prove that the accident did not occur during the course of employment of the driver of the car MYG 1624 and that they are not vicariously liable to pay compensation?” 7. Accordingly, in view of analysis and discussion made herein above, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.