JUDGMENT 1. By order dated 25.02.2019, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Senapati, accepted the prayer of the claimant in M.A.C.(D) Case No. 1 of 2019 and directed New India Assurance Company Ltd., respondent No. 1 therein, to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) to her as interim compensation in relation to the death of her husband, Losii Nipuni @ Nepuni Losii @ Nipuni Pukeni Losii, under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity, the Act of 1988), within 30 days and in default, to pay interest thereon @ 6 % per annum. Aggrieved thereby, New India Assurance Company Ltd. is in appeal. 2. Heard Mr. A. Deni Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant; and Mr. S. Suresh, learned counsel for respondent No. 1, viz., the claimant. 3. Losii Nipuni, the claimant's husband, died in a car accident on 28.10.2018. The accident occurred near Martyr's Park, about 2 Kms away from Mao Police Station, while he was driving his daughter's Maruti Swift Dzire car. Admittedly, no other vehicle was involved in the accident which occurred due to brake failure, as per the report of the Inspector (Mechanics) Motor Vehicles Department, Government of Manipur. F.I.R. No. 10(10) 2018 was however registered by Mao Police Station under Sections 279, 338 & 304-A IPC, stating that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the claimant's husband. She filed M.A.C.(D) Case No. 1 of 2019 under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,72,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Seventy-Two Lakh) along with a prayer for interim compensation of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) under Section 140 of the Act of the 1988. h. subject vehicle was covered by the insurance policy issued by New India Assurance Company. The insurance company filed a written statement denying liability on the ground that the deceased was neither the owner/driver of the vehicle nor was he a third party. It further stated that the claim was subject to proof of how the accident occurred and the income of the deceased. 4. The insurance company filed a written statement denying liability on the ground that the deceased was neither the owner/driver of the vehicle nor was he a third party. It further stated that the claim was subject to proof of how the accident occurred and the income of the deceased. 4. However, the Tribunal was of the opinion that for consideration of an application for award of interim compensation, on the basis of no-fault liability under Section 140 of the Act of 1988, it would not be required conduct a thorough inquiry and a summary procedure would be sufficient to ascertain the essential ingredients for application of the statutory provision. Considering the scheme of Chapters X and XI of the Act of 1988, the Tribunal found that the identity of the vehicle was clearly established along with the factum of being covered by an insurance policy as on the date of the accident. Further, the valid driving license of the deceased was also placed on record. The Tribunal accordingly granted interim relief under Section 140 of the Act of 1988. 5. Mr. A. Deni Sharma, learned counsel, would contend that the Tribunal was not justified in granting interim relief as the deceased was neither a third party nor the owner of the vehicle. He would point out that the deceased was himself responsible for the accident and no other vehicle was involved. He would place reliance on case law in support of his contention that the insurance company would have no liability. Per contra, Mr. S. Suresh, learned counsel, produced a copy of the insurance policy issued by the appellant insurance company and contended that it could not seek to disown liability in so far as grant of interim compensation under Section 140 of the Act of 1988 is concerned. He would also rely on case law to support the order under appeal. 6. It may be noted that Chapter X of the Act of 1988, containing Sections 140 to 144, was deleted from the statute book w.e.f. 01.09.2019 only and was therefore still in force at the time of the accident on 28.10.2018. He would also rely on case law to support the order under appeal. 6. It may be noted that Chapter X of the Act of 1988, containing Sections 140 to 144, was deleted from the statute book w.e.f. 01.09.2019 only and was therefore still in force at the time of the accident on 28.10.2018. Chapter X is titled 'Liability without fault in certain cases' and Section 140(1) speaks of the liability of the owner of the vehicle to pay compensation in respect of the death or permanent disablement of any person resulting from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle. Section 140(2) provides that the amount of compensation payable is restricted to Rs. 50,000/- in the case of death. Section 140(3) makes it clear that in a claim for compensation under Section 140(1), the claimant is not required to plead and establish that the death or permanent disablement was due to any wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle concerned or of any other person. On the same lines, Section 140(4) elaborates that the claim for compensation under Section 140(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. Section 141(1) makes it clear that the right to claim compensation under Section 140 shall be in addition to any other right, except the right to claim compensation under Section 163 A of the Act of 1988. Chapter XI of the Act of 1988 deals with insurance of vehicles against third party risks and provides for an insurer to take on such liability, subject to the conditions prescribed therein. It is therefore manifest that the 'no-fault' compensation payable under Chapter X of the Act of 1988 is distinct and the liability to pay the same attaches to the owner of the vehicle, no questions asked. It is only when the insurer takes on this liability also that the same would stand transferred to it from the owner of the vehicle. 7. This being the statutory scheme, it may be noted that the insurance policy issued by the appellant insurance company, covering the subject vehicle, stated in clear terms as to who were the persons or classes of persons entitled to drive. 7. This being the statutory scheme, it may be noted that the insurance policy issued by the appellant insurance company, covering the subject vehicle, stated in clear terms as to who were the persons or classes of persons entitled to drive. The relevant clause in the insurance policy reads thus: - 'Persons or classes of persons entitled to drive:- Any person including the insured provided that a person driving holds an effective driving license at the time of the accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a license. Provided also that the person holding an effective Learner's License may also drive the vehicle and that such a person satisfies the requirement of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.' Significantly, the policy ends with the following certification: - 'I/We hereby certify that the policy to which this Certificate relates as well as this Certificate of Insurance are issued in accordance with the provisions of Chapter X and XI of M.V. Act. 1988. NIA. S.T. REGN. No: AAACN4165CST178. The policy is subject to PCEC endorsement attached.' 8. It is therefore clear from the terms of the insurance policy that the appellant insurance company accepted liability under Chapter X along with liability under Chapter XI of the Act of 1988. In the light of this indisputable fact, it is not open to the appellant insurance company to disclaim liability to pay the no-fault compensation of Rs. 50,000/- under Section 140 of the Act of 1988. Reliance placed by the insurance company on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Ramkhiladi and another v. United India Insurance Company and another [ (2020) 2 SCC 550 ]; New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Sadanand Mukhi and others [ (2009) 2 SCC 417 ]; Ningamma and another v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. [ (2009) 13 SCC 710 ]; and of the Karnataka High Court in Smt. Sangeeta and others v. Sri. Krishna Chari and others [MFA No. 5537/2011 (MV) & Batch] are of no avail as these judgments did not turn upon or deal with Section 140 of the Act of 1988 and the 'no-fault' compensation payable thereunder. 9. Krishna Chari and others [MFA No. 5537/2011 (MV) & Batch] are of no avail as these judgments did not turn upon or deal with Section 140 of the Act of 1988 and the 'no-fault' compensation payable thereunder. 9. Significantly, in Eshwarappa alias Maheshwarappa and another v. C.S. Gurushanthappa and another [ (2010) 8 SCC 620 ], the Supreme Court pointed out that the provisions of Chapter X were in furtherance of the public policy that in case of death or permanent disablement of any person resulting from a motor accident, a minimum amount was to be paid to the heirs of the deceased or the injured, as the case may be, without any questions being asked and independent of compensation on the principle of fault. On the same lines, in Indra Devi and others v. Bagada Ram and another [ (2010) 13 SCC 249 ], the Supreme Court pointed out that the heading of Section 140 describes it as being based on the principle of 'no-fault' and as the expression 'no-fault' suggests, compensation under Section 140 is regardless of any wrongful act, neglect or default of the person in respect of whose death the claim is made. In Nishan Singh and others v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. through Regional Manager and others [ (2018) 6 SCC 765 ], the Supreme Court held that even if the claim petition under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 fails, compensation under Section 140 thereof would still have to be paid. 10. In the light of this settled legal position and given the facts of the case on hand, the appellant insurance company cannot escape its liability to pay the interim compensation amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the claimant in connection with her husband's death. The policy issued by it squarely covered such liability. The appeal is therefore devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. The amount due and payable in terms of the order under appeal, along with the interest thereon, shall be released to respondent No. 1, the claimant, within 4(four) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.