JUDGMENT Nataraj Rangaswamy, J. - This is an appeal filed by the insurer challenging the Judgment and Award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, XX Additional Judge and XVIII ACMM, Bengaluru in MVC No.4407/2008 granting compensation of Rs.50,000/- under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short). 2. The claim petition would disclose that on 17.02.2008, the son of the claimants was proceeding from Bengaluru to Mysuru in a car bearing registration No.KA-02-MG-800. At about 1.30 am., the driver of the car drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against a road median. As a result, the car turned turtle and the son of the claimant sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the way to the hospital. It was claimed that the deceased was working as a Customer Support Executive in CL1 3L e-Services Ltd., and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.11,412/- per month. The claimants therefore, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act, claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. 3. The insurer filed its written statement and admitted that the car in question was covered by a policy of insurance issued by it. It however, contended that the claimant had colluded with the police who had filed a charge sheet against Mr.Kiran Kumar, who was allegedly driving the car at the time of accident. The insurer contended that it was the deceased who was driving the car and not Mr.Kiran Kumar and therefore, the claimants had implicated one Mr.Kiran Kumar against whom the charge sheet was filed by the jurisdictional police. 4. Before the Tribunal, the claimant No.1 was examined as PW1 and two other witnesses were examined and Exs.P1 to P20 were marked. In so far as the insurer is concerned, its officer was examined as RW1 and marked Exs.R1 to R4. 5. The Tribunal held that that it was the deceased who was driving the car at the time of accident and that Mr.Kiran Kumar was implicated in the case. The Tribunal therefore, held that the accident was caused by the negligent driving of the deceased himself. However, the Tribunal invoked the power under Section 140 of the Act and awarded a fixed compensation of Rs.50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till realisation. 6. The Tribunal therefore, held that the accident was caused by the negligent driving of the deceased himself. However, the Tribunal invoked the power under Section 140 of the Act and awarded a fixed compensation of Rs.50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till realisation. 6. The insurer has therefore filed this appeal and contends that the Tribunal ought not to have invoked power under Section 140 of the Act, since the accident in question was due to the negligence of the deceased himself. 7. It is relevant to note that Section 140 of the Act is incorporated to provide immediate succour to the dependants of the deceased. The insurer cannot have any grievance in so far as the award under Section 140 of the Act is concerned. Therefore, this appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed. 8. It is stated that an appeal is also filed by the claimants for enhancement in MFA No.11024/2011. If that be so, the compensation under Section 140 of the Act awarded by the Tribunal shall be taken into account while considering the appeal filed by the claimants for enhancement which is pending before this Court. Hence, the following; ORDER (i) This appeal is dismissed. (ii) A copy of this Order is directed to be placed in MFA No.11024/2011. (iii) The amount in deposit is directed to be transferred to the Tribunal for necessary orders.