Judgment : Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). This appeal is instituted against interim award dated 4.3.2014 rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chamba in MAC No. 92/2013. 2. Pertinent facts necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that the claimant-respondent No.1 has filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. According to the averments contained in the petition, on 7.4.2009, claimant suffered injury while he was travelling in the vehicle bearing registration No.HP-48-0265. The vehicle met with an accident. It was owned by respondent No.2 Subhash Chand. It was driven by respondent No.3 rashly and negligently. FIR No.33 of 2009 was also registered in Police Station, Bharmour, District Chamba on 7.4.2009. According to the claimant, he has suffered disability to the extent of 15%. A sum of Rs.16,70,000/-was claimed on account of compensation. The claimant also filed an application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 alongwith petition under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for the grant of interim award. 3. Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/-to the claimant by way of interim compensation. The amount was ordered to be deposited within 45 days from the date of passing of order and in case of failure; the insurance company was made liable to pay interest @ 7.5% per annum on the award amount from the date of filing petition till its realization. 4. The appellant-insurance company in its reply has taken a specific stand that the vehicle was “Goods Carriage Vehicle” having registered seating capacity of 3, including driver. The vehicle at the relevant time was carrying 7 persons. Respondent No.1 was travelling in a “Goods Carriage Vehicle” as an unauthorized passenger. The driver was not holding valid driving licence. 5. Respondent No.1 has placed on record copy of FIR and disability certificate showing that claimant has suffered 15% disability. The vehicle was duly ensured by the appellant-insurance company on the alleged date of accident, i.e. 7.4.2009. The application filed by the claimant was duly supported by an affidavit. There is neither any illegality nor any infirmity in the order dated 4.3.2014, whereby a sum of Rs.25,000/-has been awarded to the claimant as interim compensation on account of “no fault liability”. 6. Mr. The application filed by the claimant was duly supported by an affidavit. There is neither any illegality nor any infirmity in the order dated 4.3.2014, whereby a sum of Rs.25,000/-has been awarded to the claimant as interim compensation on account of “no fault liability”. 6. 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. 7. 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?” 8. 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.