Judgment Vinod Chatterji Koul, J.— CONC No.57/2016 1. While preferring Civil Miscellaneous First Appeal against Award dated 15th October 2014, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Principal District & Sessions Judge) Budgam, delay of 434 days has occurred to applicant Insurance Company. According to applicant, delay was not deliberate or intentional. It is averred that applicant immediately upon passing of Award, field an application before the Tribunal for shifting liability to satisfy interim-Award upon respondent no.5, but the said application was dismissed by Tribunal vide order dated 5th August 2015. It is maintained that all the offices in the Valley were busy in settlement of claims arisen after floods of September 2014, and therefore, priority was given to the said claims and in this process furnishing of documents to Regional Office got delayed and the authority to satisfy the Award or to file Appeal against the same lies with Regional Office of Insurance Company at Chandigarh. The award along with case-file of claim petition is stated to have been sent by Divisional Office, Srinagar, to Regional Office, Chandigarh, and after asking for various documents, applicant was advised to file appeal against interim-Award. It is, thus, prayed by applicant Insurance Company that delay in filing the Appeal may be condoned. 2. Application, taken into consideration averments made therein, reflects and portrays a sufficient cause for condoning delay. The same is, accordingly, allowed and delay in filing the Appeal is condoned. CONC disposed of. 3. Appeal is taken on board for final disposal. Mac App no.60/2020 4. National Insurance Company Limited – appellant herein, is aggrieved of and seeks setting-aside of Interim Award dated 15th October 2014, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Principal District & Sessions Judge) Budgam (for short “Tribunal”) on an Application for grant of interim relief titled Gulzar Ahmad Najar and others v. National Insurance Company Limited and another, on the grounds enumerated therein. 5. Heard and considered. 6. 5. Heard and considered. 6. Learned counsel for appellant states that Tribunal has not dealt with application under Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act in proper perspective as the policy under which vehicle bearing Registration no.JK02S-5529 was insured, was a private car policy-A only, which cover risk for third party only and not for occupants travelling as gratuitous passengers and that a specific plea to this extent was raised by appellant Insurance Company in its written statement before the Tribunal, but the Tribunal passed impugned interim Award. 7. Given submissions made by learned counsel for appellant Insurance Company, it may be mentioned here that it is a beaten law that at the time of granting compensation on the principle of No-Fault Liability, the defence(s) available are not to be taken into consideration. It would be appropriate to reproduce Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 19988 infra: “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 vehicle 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 sub-section (1) in respect of the death of any person shall be a fixed sum of 1[fifty thousand rupees] and the amount of compensation payable under that sub-section in respect of the permanent disablement of any person shall be a fixed sum of 2[twenty-five thousand rupees]. (3) In any claim for compensation under sub-section (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. (3) In any claim for compensation under sub-section (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 sub-section (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 sub-section (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 163A.]” 8. Section 140 of the Act, thus, provides that while considering application for grant of interim compensation, the Tribunal has to take into consideration contents contained in the claim petition, FIR, postmortem report, death/disability certificate and, thereafter, has to make an interim award. At this stage, the Tribunal has not to consider defence(s) available to the insurer in terms of other provisions contained in the Act. My view is fortified by the judgement rendered in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nasib Chand, 2011 (II) SLJ 623; relevant portion thereof is reproduced below: “3. The crux of the matter is whether the defence projected and taken by the appellant-insurer in terms of Section 149 of the Act can be pressed into service at the time of determination of application under Section 140 of the Act or grant of interim award on no fault liability. The answer is in negative for the following reasons. The crux of the matter is whether the defence projected and taken by the appellant-insurer in terms of Section 149 of the Act can be pressed into service at the time of determination of application under Section 140 of the Act or grant of interim award on no fault liability. The answer is in negative for the following reasons. Claims under Section 140 of the Act cannot be defeated on the ground that the owner has committed the breach or the insurer has a defence in terms of Section 149 of the Act, which requires determination after leading evidence. In terms of section 140, 141, 158 (6) and 166(4) read with the Rules (supra), the Claims Tribunal is required to satisfy itself while determining the petition under section 140 of the Act in respect of the following points: i. The accident has arisen out of the use of motor vehicle; ii. The said accident resulted in death or permanent disablement; iii. The claim is made against the owner and insurer of the motor vehicle involved in the accident. The Claims Tribunal after examining the FIR and the disability certificate came to the conclusion that claimant-respondent no.1 has prima facie established all the ingredients which are required for determination of the petition under section 140 of the Act on no fault liability. The appellant-insurer has not denied the factum of insurance. Thus it is admitted that the vehicle was insured at the relevant point of time. The Tribunal has strictly followed the procedure contained in sections 140 and 141 of the Act read with the Rules (supra).” 9. The Supreme Court in National Insurance Company v. Sinitha, AIR 2012 SC 797 , has made the same views and observations as have been quoted above. Even a Bench of this Court in Raina and others v. Kh. Habib-ullah Najar and others, 2005 (1) JKJ HC 645, has held that while granting interim relief, the Tribunal has not to look into the defence available to the Insurance Company but on the basis of prima facie evidence available on the record and no roving enquiry is required to be conducted while granting such relief. 10. When the instant case is analyzed in the backdrop of ratio emerging from the above discourse, impugned Interim Award need not be interfered with and as a consequence whereof, Appeal is liable to be dismissed. 11. 10. When the instant case is analyzed in the backdrop of ratio emerging from the above discourse, impugned Interim Award need not be interfered with and as a consequence whereof, Appeal is liable to be dismissed. 11. In the given circumstances, the Appeal is dismissed with connected CM(s). Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated. 12. Nevertheless, respondents/claimants shall file an Undertaking before the Tribunal that in the event they fail, they will reimburse the interim compensation. 13. Copy of this judgment be sent down.