An appeal against an interim compensation order under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is maintainable under Section 173 of the Act of 1988. The Tribunal is not required to record a positive finding regarding permanent disablement before awarding interim compensation, but only needs to be prima facie satisfied from the injury report or other material on record about the nature of injuries as contemplated under Section 142 of the Act of 1988.

1. - The instant misc. appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as 'Act of 1988') has been filed against the interim compensation dated 5.9.1994 passed by M.A.C.T., Raisinghnagar in MACT Claim Case No. 87/93 giving interim compensation of Rs. 12,500 under Section 140 of the aforesaid Act.

2. A pointed question was asked to the learned counsel for the appellant as to whether the order passed under Section 140 of the Act of 1988 is appealable within the meaning of Section 173 of the said Act ? In reply to the aforesaid query the learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision rendered by learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. v. Mst. Hasi and Ors. , decided on 21.7.1995.

3. In case of Oriental Insurance Co. (supra) the learned Single Judge expressed his agreement with the view taken in a decision by a Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court reported in 1989 ACJ page 1129 holding that an order granting an interim compensation under Section 92A (old Act) is in the nature of passing an award and is appealable under Section 110D (old Act). According to the aforesaid Division Bench revision under Section 115 CPC is not tenable.

4. In view of the aforesaid judgment rendered by the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court the learned Single Judge of this Court ruled that against an interim compensation under Section 140 of the Act of 1988 an appeal under Section 173 of the Act of 1988 is maintainable. I respectfully concur with the view taken by the learned Single Judge of this Court and hold that against an interim compensation an appear is maintainable under Section 173 of the Act of 1988.

5. The next contention of the learned counsel for the appellant before me is that before awarding interim compensation within the meaning of Section 140(2) of the Act of 1988 the Tribunal, is under legal obligation to record a positive finding regarding permanent disablement of a claimant. In support of his aforesaid contention the learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on an unreported decision rendered by learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. v. Sheesh Ram & Ors. decided on 10.4.1991.

6. I have critically examined the order impugned passed by Tribunal awarding interim compensation to the claimant. I have also perused the injury report of the claimant furnished by the learned counsel for the appellant.

7. A close scrutiny of the injury report of the claimant reveals that the claimant had received numerous injuries including fracture and compound fracture. The aforesaid injury report of the claimant, further leads towards an irresistible conclusion that medical jurist while examining the injuries of claimant had advised three X-Ray of those injuries.

8. I asked to the learned counsel for appellant to produce the X-Ray reports in order to verify as to whether injuries caused to the claimant are capable to fall within the definition of permanent disablement as contemplated under Section 142 of the Act of 1988. At this stage the learned counsel for the appellant expressed his inability to furnish the X-Ray reports.

9. In my humble opinion the facts of the unreported judgment rendered by learned Single Judge in the case of New India Assurance Co. (supra) are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The facts and circumstances of the present case leads towards an irresistible conclusion that the numerous injuries suffered by the claimant are capable to cause permanent disablement as contemplated under Section 142 of the Act of 1988.

10. In my humble opinion the burden of proof lies upon the appellant to satisfy to this Court that the injuries suffered by the claimant prima facie do not fall within the definition of permanent disablement as contemplated under Section 142 of the Act of 1988. The appellant has deliberately avoided to file the three X-Ray reports of the injuries suffered by the claim