JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 29.09.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-VI-cum-Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhanbad in Title MV Suit No.267 of 2008 whereby the appellant/IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. has been directed to pay the interim compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short “M.V. Act”) of Rs.50,000/- to the respondents/claimants. 2. Before appreciating the arguments of the learned counsels, it would be necessary to briefly state the facts giving rise to the present appeal. The claimants' case is that the deceased Chandrika Paswan was going to attend the nature's call to the pond situated near Akash Kinari Colliery, P.S. Katras. He was hit by the vehicle being Tipper No. JH 10M 7062. He sustained grievous injury and died on the spot. It is alleged that the said truck was being driven rashly and negligently. A First Information Report bearing Katras P.S. Case No.282 of 2008 under Section 279 and 304-A was registered against the driver. On investigation chargesheet was submitted against the driver. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that it would be evident from the insurance policy, Annexure-1, that the insurance was for the plant and machinery and the said insurance policy was not issued under the Motor Vehicles Act. It is argued by the learned counsel that the court below has held that the occurrence had taken place within the operational area of M/s BCCL during the transit of the vehicle and it is not denied by the defendant (appellant herein) that the vehicle was not in use for operational purpose, thus, the exclusion clause is not adverse to the claimant. Learned counsel has submitted that Section 140 of the M.V. Act, 1988 is based on the principle of no fault liability being a beneficent provision for providing immediate relief to the legal heirs and representatives of the deceased however in terms of Clause-1 of Section 140 of the M.V. Act, the liability to pay the compensation is on the owner or owners jointly or severally. It is argued that the liability of the insurance company to indemnify the owner is provided under Section 145 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is argued that the liability of the insurance company to indemnify the owner is provided under Section 145 of the Motor Vehicles Act. That perusal of the terms of the policy would reveal that certain exceptions are stipulated in the policy whereby the insurance company cannot be fastened with the liability to pay the compensation where the vehicle is in transit from one location to another as provided in Clause 2(h) of the policy. That as far as the third party liability is concerned, it has been stipulated in the contract that the third party who is a non-employee or non-working member of the family of the insurer who sustain such injury at the site, as per Annexure-1, of the terms of the agreement. It is argued that the insurance policy along with the terms and conditions of the policy had been filed but the court below, without appreciating the terms and conditions has fastened the liability upon the insurer without giving an opportunity to the insurer/appellant to adduce evidence that the death of the deceased was not covered under the policy and the insurer was entitled to the benefit of the exception and the appellant/insurance company is not liable to indemnify the owner as the accident involved in the present case was not covered by the terms and conditions of the policy. It is argued that the application was filed under Section 140 of the M.V. Act simpliciter without any claim being filed under Section 166 of the Act and in such circumstance the court should have conducted a preliminary enquiry to establish that the insurer was liable to indemnify the owner in terms of the policy. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/owner has submitted that no error has been committed by the Tribunal and he has relied on the decision rendered by the Madhya Pradesh High Court reported in 1993 ACJ 1219 (United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vrs. Ratansingh) and submitted that when the vehicle is validly insured then the amount awarded under Section 140 of the M.V. Act is to be paid by the insurance company. It is argued that it at all there has been violation of terms and conditions of the policy that can only be looked into when evidence is adduced and award is passed under Section 168 of the M.V. Act and not at this stage. It is argued that it at all there has been violation of terms and conditions of the policy that can only be looked into when evidence is adduced and award is passed under Section 168 of the M.V. Act and not at this stage. He has also relied on the decisions reported in 2012 (4) JLJR 254 and 2015(4) SCC 213. 5. On query by the court whether the claimants have filed an application under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, learned counsel for the respondent/claimant has fairly conceded that no application under Section 166 of the M.V. Act has been filed and it shall be filed on receipt of payment of the interim compensation. 6. Admittedly the application is simpliciter under Section 140 of the M.V. Act. It is true that the provision of Section 140 of the M.V. Act is a beneficial legislation based on the principle of no fault liability but Clause-1 of Section 140 of the M.V. Act contemplates that the liability to pay the interim compensation is upon the owner or owners jointly or severely. The terms and conditions of the insurance policy annexed herein clearly stipulate that the third party liability would arise in a case where the vehicle was in transit. The court below has erred in interpreting the terms and conditions of the policy and failed to appreciate that the insurance policy was primarily issued with respect to plant and machinery. The liability of the insurance company towards third party could be appreciated only after conducting a preliminary enquiry with respect to the terms and conditions of the policy by affording the opportunity to the parties to adduce relevant evidence. Had the respondent/claimant filed a composite application under Section 166 and 140 of the Act, then the Insurance Company would have been fastened with the liability to pay the compensation subject to the outcome of the application under Section 166 of the Act. The trial court should have recorded its satisfaction on the basis of preliminary enquiry to ascertain whether the accident did not come within the purview of the exception clause of the terms and condition of the policy before fastening the liability on the insurer. As per Section 140 of the M.V. Act the owner of the vehicle is liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. As per Section 140 of the M.V. Act the owner of the vehicle is liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. Accordingly at this stage the insurer is exonerated of the liability to pay the compensation while the owner is liable to be proceeded with for recovery of the amount for payment to the claimants. It is made clear that no views or opinion have been expressed on the merit of the case and the court below shall not be influenced by any observation made hereinabove, if any application is filed under Section 166 of the M.V. Act. Registry is directed to refund the deposited statutory amount to the appellant/insurance company. The appeal is hereby disposed off.