JUDGMENT : Appellant being the partyinperson, challenging the order dated 14-07-2016 made in MVC No. 5117/2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for short) rejecting the application filed by him under Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘the Act’ for brevity) seeking interim compensation on the principle of “No Fault Liability”. 2. The appellant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident, inter alia contending that on 03-10-2015, while he was proceeding as a pillion rider in a Bajaj Discover motorcycle, bearing Registration No.KA02/EZ5802 ridden by the first respondent herein, and while returning from Family Court to City Civil Court, the rider of the motorcycle dashed the motorcycle to the road-divider, due to that the claimant fell down from the motorcycle and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to the Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital, Bangalore wherein he took treatment as inpatient. In the accident he has sustained fracture of right arm, tenderness over mid 1/3rd of upper arm, tenderness over the right elbow. He has undergone operation with the implants on 13-10-2015 and discharged on 15-10-2015. As per the advice of the doctor, he had taken rest for a period of 4 months. He has spent more than Rs.30,000/- towards the treatment. He was a practicing advocate, in view of the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident, he has sustained huge loss. Hence sought for compensation of Rs.13,22,000/- . Along with the said claim petition, the claimant had also filed an application, invoking Section 140 of the Act seeking for interim compensation on the principle of No Fault Liability. 3. The respondents 2 and 3 filed objections to the claim petition. Respondent No.2 in the written statement admitted the occurrence of accident and injuries sustained by the claimant. As on the date of accident, the insurance policy was in force. The motorcycle was having package and comprehensive policy, it covers the risk of pillion rider also. Hence, the insurance company has to indemnify the insured and liable to compensate the claimant. 4. The insurance company in their written statement denied its liability and also contended that there was no accident occurred as claimed by the claimant and it was self-fall from the motorcycle on 03-10-2015. However, the complaint was lodged on 02-11-2015. Hence, the insurance company has to indemnify the insured and liable to compensate the claimant. 4. The insurance company in their written statement denied its liability and also contended that there was no accident occurred as claimed by the claimant and it was self-fall from the motorcycle on 03-10-2015. However, the complaint was lodged on 02-11-2015. While admitting in the hospital, the claimant has clearly mentioned that injury due to self-fall, hence the insurance company is not liable to compensate the claimant. Further, the injuries sustained by the claimant will not fall under Section 140 of the Act, the appellant cannot make an application under Section 140 seeking interim compensation. Hence, sought for dismissal of the application filed under Section 140 of the Act. 5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal had taken up the application filed under Section 140 of the Act and framed necessary issues. 6. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments addressed by the parties, held that the claimant has sustained deformity of the right arm which does not come within the purview of Section 140 of the Act. As per Section 142 of the Act, in order to claim interim compensation, either death or permanent disablement has to be resulted from the accident arising out of use of the motor vehicle or motor vehicles. Section 142 deals with the permanent disablement. The injuries sustained by the claimant do not fall under any of the injuries as enumerated under Section 142 of the Act and accordingly dismissed the application filed under Section 140 of the Act, by its order dated 14-07-2016. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed this appeal. 7. Sri. K.L. Vidyashankar, party-in-person contended that the order dated 14-07-2016 rejecting the application filed under Section 140 is erroneous in law and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. In the road traffic accident occurred on 03-10-2015, he has sustained deformity of right arm, tenderness over the elbow and mid 1/3rd upper arm. He took treatment as inpatient and has undergone surgery with implants on 13-10-2015 and discharged on 15-10-2015. Under Section 140 of the Act, the claimant need not prove the negligence and the compensation has to be awarded on the principle of no fault liability. Hence, the claimant is entitled for interim compensation as provided under Section 140 of the Act. He took treatment as inpatient and has undergone surgery with implants on 13-10-2015 and discharged on 15-10-2015. Under Section 140 of the Act, the claimant need not prove the negligence and the compensation has to be awarded on the principle of no fault liability. Hence, the claimant is entitled for interim compensation as provided under Section 140 of the Act. The order passed by the Tribunal is erroneous in law. In support of his contention he relied upon the following judgments:- 1. 1994 ACJ 74 (Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mohiuddi Kureshi @ Md. Moya & Others) 2. 1995 ACJ 164 (Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Murugan) 3. 2001(1) TAC 399 (MP) (Banwari Lal Vs. Satish Kumar & Others) 4. AIR 2001 Pat 205 (Kanhai Rai & Others Vs. Dharampal & Others) 5. 2000 ACJ 499 (Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nathu Ram) 6. 2013 ACJ 1371 (Meenakshi Vs. Anita Bhaskar) 8. On the other hand, Sri. A.N. Krishnaswamy, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company argued in support of the order passed by the Tribunal and contended that the application filed by the claimant under Section 140 of the Act is not maintainable. Section 140 of the Act can be invoked only in case of death or permanent disablement of any person, which has resulted from an accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle or motor vehicles. The owner of the said vehicle is liable to pay the compensation in respect of such death or disablement. The insurance company is not liable to compensate the claimant. In the instant case, the claimant has sustained fracture of right arm which will not lead to any permanent disability as contemplated under Section 142 of the Act and he has not sustained any permanent privation of the sight of either eye or the hearing of either ear, destruction or permanent impairing of any joint and permanent disfigurement of the head or face. In the instant case the claimant has not suffered any permanent disability as enumerated under Section 142 of the Act. Hence, the claimant is not entitled for any compensation under Section 140 of the Act. The Tribunal after considering the entire aspect of the matter and taking into consideration various judgment of various High Courts and this Court dismissed the application filed by the claimant under Section1 40 of the Act. Hence, sought for dismissal of the appeal. Hence, the claimant is not entitled for any compensation under Section 140 of the Act. The Tribunal after considering the entire aspect of the matter and taking into consideration various judgment of various High Courts and this Court dismissed the application filed by the claimant under Section1 40 of the Act. Hence, sought for dismissal of the appeal. 9. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the order passed by the Tribunal, oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties. 10. The office has raised the objection with regard to maintainability of the appeal, since the appellant has challenged the order passed on the application filed by the appellant under Section 140 of the Act. In view of the judgments of various High Courts as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the order passed under Section 140 of the Act amounts to award, the person aggrieved can prefer an appeal under Section 173(1) of the Act before this Court. In view of that, the appeal filed by the appellant is maintainable before this Court. 11. The relevant provision for grant of interim compensation under the principle of “No Fault Liability” falls under Chapter-X. The relevant provisions read thus:- 140. Liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle of no fault.- (1) Where death or permanent disablement of any person has resulted from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles, the owner of the vehicles shall, or, as the case may be, the owners of the vehicles shall, jointly and severally, be liable to pay compensation in respect of such death or disablement in accordance with the provisions of this section. (2) The amount of compensation which shall be payable under subsection (1) in respect of the death of any person shall be a fixed sum of [fifty thousand rupees] and the amount of compensation payable under that subsection in respect of the permanent disablement of any person shall be a fixed sum of [twenty-five thousand rupees]. (2) The amount of compensation which shall be payable under subsection (1) in respect of the death of any person shall be a fixed sum of [fifty thousand rupees] and the amount of compensation payable under that subsection in respect of the permanent disablement of any person shall be a fixed sum of [twenty-five thousand rupees]. (3) In any claim for compensation under subsection (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead and establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner or owners of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person. (4) A claim for compensation under subsection (1) shall not be defeated by reason of any wrongful act, neglect or default of the person in respect of whose death or permanent disablement the claim has been made nor shall the quantum of compensation recoverable in respect of such death or permanent disablement be reduced on the basis of the share of such person in the responsibility for such death or permanent disablement. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (2) regarding death or bodily injury to any person, for which the owner of the vehicle is liable to give compensation for relief, he is also liable to pay compensation under any other law for the time being in force : Provided that the amount of such compensation to be given under any other law shall be reduced from the amount of compensation payable under this section or under section 163-A]. 141. Provisions as to other right to claim compensation for death or permanent disablement (1) The right to claim compensation under section 140 in respect of death or permanent disablement of any person shall be in addition to [any other right, except the right to claim under the scheme referred to in section 163-A (such other right hereafter] in this section referred to as the right on the principle of fault) to claim compensation in respect thereof under any other provision of this Act or of any other law for the time being in force. (2) A claim for compensation under section 140 in respect of death or permanent disablement of any person shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible and where compensation is claimed in respect of such death or permanent disablement under section 140 and also in pursuance of any right on the principle of fault, the claim for compensation under section 140 shall be disposed of as aforesaid in the first place. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1), where in respect of the death or permanent disablement of any person, the person liable to pay compensation under section 140 is also liable to pay compensation in accordance with the right on the principle of fault, the person so liable shall pay the first-mentioned compensation and – (a) if the amount of the first-mentioned compensation is less than the amount of the second-mentioned compensation, he shall be liable to pay (in addition to the first-mentioned compensation) only so much of the second-mentioned compensation as is equal to the amount by which it exceeds the first-mentioned compensation; (b) if the amount of the first-mentioned compensation is equal to or more than the amount of the second-mentioned compensation, he shall not be liable to pay the second-mentioned compensation. 142. Permanent disablement.- For the purposes of this Chapter, permanent disablement of a person shall be deemed to have resulted from an accident of the nature referred to in subsection (1) of section 140 if such person has suffered by reason of the accident, any injury or injuries involving : (a) permanent privation of the sight of either eye or the hearing of either ear, or privation of any member or joint; or (b) destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any members or joint; or (c) permanent disfiguration of the head or face. 12. Reading of Section 140 of the Act, provides for the liability to pay compensation on the principle of no fault. An owner of the vehicle would be liable to pay the compensation in case of death or permanent disablement of any person as a result of such accident. The amount of such compensation in terms of Section 140(2) of the Act is fixed as Rs.50,000/- in case of death and Rs.25,000/- in case of permanent disablement. An owner of the vehicle would be liable to pay the compensation in case of death or permanent disablement of any person as a result of such accident. The amount of such compensation in terms of Section 140(2) of the Act is fixed as Rs.50,000/- in case of death and Rs.25,000/- in case of permanent disablement. Subsection (3) of Section 140 of the Act contemplates that the claimant shall not be required to plead and establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to the wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle. Section 141 of the said Act, however provides for right to claim compensation under Section 140 shall be in addition to any other right under the provisions of the said Act or any other law for time being in force. Section 142 of the Act contemplates the permanent disablement as contemplated in sub-Section (1) of Section 140 of the Act. The injuries sustained by the claimant do not fall under any of permanent disablement as enumerated under Section 142 of the Act. The wound certificate issued by Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital shows that he has sustained deformity of right arm; tenderness over mid 1/3rd upper arm and tenderness over the right elbow. The doctor was of the opinion that injury No.1 is grievous in nature and injuries 2 and 3 are simple in nature. Hence, the injuries sustained by the claimant will not come within the purview of Section 142 of the Act. In various judgments of the various High Courts as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it has been clearly held that on fulfilling the conditions enumerated in Chapter-X, the person can claim interim compensation as provided under Section 140 of the Act. While deciding the issue, the Tribunal bound to give opportunity to the insurance company to have their say in the matter. The full bench of this Court in a judgment reported in ILR 1990 Kar 16 (United India Insurance Company Vs. Imam Ameen Sab Nadaf) while examining the similar provision, framed the following issues for consideration: Whether, an award directing payment of the compensation under Section 92(A) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939, be made against the insurer without an enquiry and a finding that the risk giving raise to claim is covered by the insurance policy ? Imam Ameen Sab Nadaf) while examining the similar provision, framed the following issues for consideration: Whether, an award directing payment of the compensation under Section 92(A) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939, be made against the insurer without an enquiry and a finding that the risk giving raise to claim is covered by the insurance policy ? 13. In paragraphs 18 and 19 of the judgment, this Court held as under:- “18. After giving our careful consideration, it appears to us that whether the compensation is claimed under ‘no fault liability’ of the owner of the vehicle under Section 92A or on ground of fault under Section 110A, as far as the insurer is concerned his liability, in view of Section 95(5), is to indemnify the insured only to the extent such liability is undertaken or covered by the policy and not beyond that. Therefore, in order to fix the liability on the Insurance Company to pay the compensation awarded under Section 92A of the Act, the Tribunal, in addition to deciding as to whether the vehicle involved in the accident was covered by an insurance policy, has to decide as to whether prima facie the risk was covered by the insurance policy. If having regard to the facts stated in the claim petition itself and the contents of an Insurance Policy, a finding could be arrived at that the policy did not cover the risk, in such a case there is no reason as to why the Insurance Company should be compelled to pay the amount solely on the ground that the policy of insurance existed and compel the Insurance Company to collect later the money paid from the owner of the vehicle which would throw the Insurance Companies to innumerable litigations. It is no where provided and it is not also the case of the claimant that an insurer should pay the amount awarded under Section 92A even if the liability was not covered by the policy. Further, if the intention of the Legislature was to deprive the defences available under Section 96(2) of the Act at the stage of adjudication of a claim under Section 92A of the Act, the Legislature would have incorporated such a condition. Further, if the intention of the Legislature was to deprive the defences available under Section 96(2) of the Act at the stage of adjudication of a claim under Section 92A of the Act, the Legislature would have incorporated such a condition. In fact, the only provision incorporated in Section 92B(2) of the act is to require the Tribunal to dispose of the claim under Section 92A of the Act as expeditiously as possible. Thus when the Legislature not imposed the liability on the Insurer to pay the amount awarded under Section 92A, even in cases in which the liability is not covered by the policy and further the Legislature has not deprived the defences open to Insurance Company under Section 96(2), in the course of adjudication of claims under Section 92A, such a bar cannot be assumed by the Courts. In order to show that there would be cases where on the face of the insurance policy the Insurance Company cannot be held liable, we give the following illustrations: (1) Take a case in which the owner himself was driving the vehicle without a licence and the insurance policy expressly states that the Insurance Company has undertaken the liability if only the vehicle was being driven, at the time of accident, by a person having a driving licence. (2) Take a case of insurance policy given in respect of a two wheeler in which no risk in respect of a pillion rider is covered, unless he happens to be an employee of the owner and on the facts stated in the petition itself, or brought to the notice of the Court, the pillion rider in respect of whom compensation is claimed was not an employee. (3) Take a case in which the policy issued in respect of a lorry, the coverage is only in respect of the driver, a cleaner and six coolies or six passengers traveling as owners of the goods, but large number of persons far above six were traveling, in such a lorry and number of them suffered death or permanent disability. (3) Take a case in which the policy issued in respect of a lorry, the coverage is only in respect of the driver, a cleaner and six coolies or six passengers traveling as owners of the goods, but large number of persons far above six were traveling, in such a lorry and number of them suffered death or permanent disability. (4) Take a case of a tractor-trailer authorized to be used only for agricultural purpose and the risk covered is only in respect of the driver and the coolies engaged for loading and unloading purposes and on the facts stated in the claim petition it is found that at the time of accident it was carrying large number of persons from one place to another place as if it were a vehicle meant for carrying passengers and in the course of such movement accident had occurred, as a result of which large number of persons suffered death or permanent disability and the claim petitions are presented by the legal representatives of the persons who suffered permanent disability. 19. In the cases illustrated above, on looking into the facts alleged in the petition and going through the policy issued by the Insurance Company, a finding at once can be recorded to the effect that the risk was not covered by the policy. There might be other similar cases. In such cases, in our opinion, the Tribunal cannot refuse to look into the contents of the insurance policy which patently establishes no liability on the insurance company and blindly make an award directing the Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation awarded under Section 92A of the Act stating that a direction would be made in the final award directing the Insurance Company to file a suit against the owner and recover the same from him. In our opinion, just as a person impleaded as a respondent to a claim petition as owner, cannot be made liable to pay compensation under Section 92A of the Act, if he were to show that he was not the owner of the vehicle, the Insurance Company also cannot be asked to pay the compensation if it were to make out that patently, the policy did not cover the risk. In our opinion there is no justification to foist the liability on the Insurance Company even if it is in a position to show that patently the risk was not covered by the policy.” 14. Some of the judgments relied upon by the appellant are not applicable to the facts of this Case. In BANWARI LAL case (supra) the claimant had sustained grievous injury and he was not in a position even to walk. He was produced before the Court on a stretcher. In those circumstances, Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the claimant has sustained permanent disability and awarded interim compensation of Rs.25,000/-. Insofar as MURUGAN judgment (supra) is concerned, the Kerala High Court has not given any finding whether the fracture of 6th vertebra amounts to permanent disability as envisaged under Section 142 of the Act. 15. In the case on hand, the claimant is a practicing advocate. As on today, he is actively practicing. The injury sustained by the claimant is only deformity of right arm and other simple injuries. The injuries sustained by the claimant will not fall under the purview of Section 142 of the Act and to claim interim compensation under Section 140 of the Act under the principle of “No Fault Liability”, there must be death of permanent disablement resulted from such accident. 16. Sections 140 to 144 of the Act falling under Chapter X of the Act corresponding to Section 92(A) to 92(E) of Chapter-VII A of 1939 Act. Section 140 provides inter alia that in case of death or permanent disablement of any person as a result of accident, arising out of use of the motor vehicle, the owner shall be liable to pay the interim compensation on the principle of no fault as detailed under sub-Section (2) thereof. To maintain the claim of interim compensation, the negligence or the default on the part of the person in respect of whose death or permanent disablement, the claim has been made, is no ground to deny the interim compensation nor is the owner protected from the liability to pay the compensation under any other law for time being in force. To maintain the claim of interim compensation, the negligence or the default on the part of the person in respect of whose death or permanent disablement, the claim has been made, is no ground to deny the interim compensation nor is the owner protected from the liability to pay the compensation under any other law for time being in force. No doubt, Section 140 of the Act provides that the interim compensation is to be paid by the owner but once an insurance policy in terms of chapter XI is in force covering the liability against the third party risk, then by virtue of definition of liability under Section 145(e), the interim compensation is also included or covered by the said policy and the insurance company also become liable to pay interim compensation. 17. The object and reasons for incorporating the aforesaid provisions were that due to rapid development of road transport in the country, the number of road accidents have also been increased. Under the law, remedy for compensation can be available only on proof of wrongful act or negligence on the part of owner or driver. In view of the circumstances under which the accident took place, it is noticed that it was difficult to give adequate evidence to prove the wrongful act or negligence and as such with a view to make strict proof of road safety measures and also to make as a measure of social justice suitable provisions for the compensation without the proof of fault or negligence on the part of the owner or driver should be made. However, to claim compensation under the said provision, he has to fulfill the conditions enumerated under Section 140(1) and Section 142 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal after appreciating the contentions urged by the parties taking into consideration various judgments of various High Courts rejected the application filed under Section 140 of the Act. I find no infirmity or irregularity in the order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The Tribunal is directed to dispose of the claim petition filed by the claimant under Section 166 of the Act, as expeditiously as possible.