ORDER : 1. Both these appeals arise out of the order passed under Section 140 of the M.V. Act in M.A.C. Case No. 16 of 2014, whereby and whereunder, the claim for compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been dismissed by the learned Tribunal. 2. The facts are not in dispute that sister Geraldin and sister Serophina Ekka died in a motor vehicle accident when they were travelling by Ambulance No. JH 07C-3593 which met with an accident. The sole ground on which the claim application has been rejected is that deceased being the nuns and they were serving in St. Anne Health Centre, Katkahi, Chainpur, Gumla and the claimants being the President of St. Annes Society, Sisai Road, Gumla cannot be said to be the legal representatives/dependents of the deceased. 3.It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant in both cases that the question is no longer res integra and has been answered in Montford Brothers of St. Gabriel & Anr. Vs. United India Insurance & Anr., 2014 (3) SCC 394 wherein it has been held that the claimant in such cases shall be deemed to be legal representative of the deceased and shall be entitled to claim compensation. 4.It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the Insurance Company that the claim of ad-interim compensation under Section 140 of the M.V. Act, is summary in nature and the main case under Section 166 of the M.V. Act is still pending. The pleadings of the appellant are replete with inconsistencies and contradictions and, therefore, the claim has been rightly disallowed at this stage. 5.It is further argued that the deceased being the nuns, who had renounced the family, cannot be said to be the dependents of the claimant and further, the claim has been preferred by an individual and not in the name of society which was incumbent under Section 6 of the Soceities Registration Act, 1860. Reliance in this regard is placed on 2022 (0) AIR (SC) 1580. 6.Furthermore, the offending vehicle in question was registered in the name of sister Rufina, whereas the policy has been taken in the name of St. Anne Health Centre which is not in accordance with Section 2 (30) of the M.V.Act. Reliance in this regard is placed on 2022 (0) AIR (SC) 1580. 6.Furthermore, the offending vehicle in question was registered in the name of sister Rufina, whereas the policy has been taken in the name of St. Anne Health Centre which is not in accordance with Section 2 (30) of the M.V.Act. 7.The principal ground, on which the claim application of the appellant has been dismissed, i.e. the claimants were not dependents of the deceased, is not sustainable in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Montford Brothers of St. Gabriel & Anr. (supra). 8.The argument advanced on behalf of the Insurance Company that the claim is not as per Section 6 of the Societies Registration Act is also not sustainable to deny the claim application. In view of the fact that the claim has been preferred on behalf of a Society, the payment shall be made in the account of St. Anne Health Centre and not in the individual account of the claimants. These issues cannot come in the way from awarding just and reasonable compensation in favour of the claimant Society. 9. Both the Misc. Appeals are, accordingly, allowed. 10. Pending, I.A., if any, stands disposed of.