JUDGMENT

Sunil K. Kotwal, J. - New India Assurance Company Limited has preferred these appeals against the order, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aurangabad in Motor Accident Claim Petitions No. 773 of 2006, 772 of 2006, 774 of 2006 and 771 of 2006, respectively, passed under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as, ''the MV Act''), awarding interim compensation.

2. Original claimants are respondent no.1 in the respective appeals. Respondent no.2 is original owner of the offending vehicle.

3. Since these all appeals arise in respect of motor vehicular accident, dated 13.9.2006 by one and the same offending vehicle, bearing registration No. MH20/ AA9750, these appeals are disposed of by this common judgment.

4. Facts leading to institution of these appeals, in brief, are that, on 13.9.2006 the claimants were traveling by offending tempo as labours of hirer of the tempo, which turn turtled, resulting into permanent disabilities to the claimants due to accidental injuries. Therefore, all the claimants filed respective claim petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act as well as moved application under Section 140 of the MV Act for interim compensation. All applications under Section 140 of the MV Act are allowed by the Tribunal and awarded interim compensation of Rs. 25,000/each to all the claimants.

5. Being insurer of this offending vehicle, these appeals are preferred by the insurance company against the impugned judgment and order.

6. Heard Shri Ambhore, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri G.R.Syed, learned counsel for respondent no.1/original claimant.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that from the recitals of the copy of the first information report, it emerges that the claimants were traveling by offending tempo as labours of Shaikh Ibrahim Bagwan to go to the sweet lime orchard for plucking the fruits. He submits that the claimants being gratuitous passengers traveling by goods vehicle are not covered by the policy of insurance issued by the appellant insurance company. He submits that the order, passed by the Tribunal is bad in law and the insurance company deserves to be exonerated from any liability. He placed reliance on the judgment in the case of " National Insurance Company Limited vs. Cholleti Bharatamma and ors." [AIR 2008 SC 484], "United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Sarjerao and others" [AIR 2008 SC 460] and "National Insurance Company Limited vs. Kaushalaya Devi and others" [(2008) 8 SCC 246].

8. Learned counsel for respondent no.1/claimants submits that while considering the no fault liability under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, rash or negligent driving by driver of the offending vehicle cannot be considered. His next submission is that at this premature stage, the Tribunal cannot determine whether there was breach of conditions of the policy of the insurance. He prays for dismissal of the appeals. He has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of " Indira Devi vs. Bagada Ram and Anr." [2010 AIR SCW 4924], "Eshwarappa alias Maheshwarappa and another vs. C.S. Gurushanthappa and another" [2010 AIR SCW 4918], and "Smt. Rammurti wd/o Ramprakash Mishra and Ors. vs. Rudresh B. Tiwari through legal heirs and Ors." [2015 (6) Mh.L.J.305].

9. No doubt, legal position is absolutely clear that while considering the application for grant of interim compensation under Section 140 of the MV Act, the Tribunal need not go into the inquiry regarding default on the part of the driver. In Eshwarappa alias Maheshwarappa (supra), the Apex Court ruled that claim under Section 140 of the MV Act can be made at the beginning or subsequently at any time, as it is independent right given by statute to the claimants. In Indira Devi vs. Bagada Ram (supra), the Apex Court held that default of the victim for the accident does not deprive him from no fault liability compensation. Expression "no fault" suggests the compensation under Section 140 is