( 1 ) LEAVE granted.

( 2 ) WHETHER an order passed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act') is an appealable one is the question involved in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 04. 07. 2005 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court in M. F. A. Nos. 8227 of 2004 c/w 8234 to 8237, 8239 and 8240 of 2004.

( 3 ) THE basic facts of the case are not in dispute. Appellants herein are the heirs and legal representatives of the coolies travelling from Kankanwadi to Saundatti in the State of Karanataka in a tractor trailer. The said tractor trailer met with an accident allegedly owing to rash and negligent driving on the part of its driver. Out of 44 persons travelling in the said tractor trailer, nine persons died and others received serious injuries.

( 4 ) APPELLANTS herein filed claim petitions in terms of Section 166 of the Act read with Section 140 thereof before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal' ). By reason of an order dated 13. 09. 2004, the learned Tribunal directed both the owner as also Respondent No. 1 (Insurance Company) to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/- each for every deceased within a period of one month.

( 5 ) AGGRIEVED by and dissatisfied therewith, Respondent No. 1 herein preferred appeals before the High Court. One of the contentions raised by the appellants was that the appeals under Section 173 of the Act were not maintainable, inter alia, on the premise that the said order dated 13. 09. 2004 was not an award within the meaning of Section 173 of the Act. In support of the said contention, reliance was placed on a decision of the Bombay High Court in Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Bapu Onkar Chaudhary. The High Court, however, in view of the fact that admittedly the deceased and the injured, who were travelling in the tractor trailer, were unauthorised passengers and also having regard to the decision of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. V. Chinnamma and Ors. , opined that the said order would be an appealable one.

( 6 ) THE learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants would submit that the right of appeal is a statutory right and in view of the fact that no adjudication was required to be made by the Tribunal while passing an order under Section 140 of the Act, the same would not come within the purview of the definition of the term 'award'. Reliance has been placed on British India General Insurance Co. , Ltd. v. Captain Itbar Singh and Ors. and Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.

( 7 ) THE learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, would support the judgment.

( 8 ) SECTION 140 of the Act is in Chapter X thereof provides for liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle of no fault. An application under Section 140 of the Act is maintainable by way of interim application or otherwise in a proceeding initiated in terms of Section 166 thereof. Section 166 of the Act, on the other hand, is in Chapter XII thereof. The said provisions read as under: section 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 [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 [twenty-five thousand rupees].

(3) In any claim for compensation