Honble VERMA, J.–The appellant is the injured claimant in this appeal who had filed a claim petition before the MACT Ajmer. An application was also moved alongwith the claim application for seeking interim relief as was required under Section 92-A of the Unamended Act, which was application at that time.

(2). The Tribunal concerned, dismissed the aforesaid application filed for seeking interim relief on 15.9.1989, therefore, the parties had led the evidence. It is stated that the whole of the evidence was led by the Tribunal vide its impugned award and dismissed the said application. The Tribunal had also found that the passenger in question was a gratuitous passenger and therefore, she was not entitled to any amount of compensation.

(3). In my opinion, the reasons given by the Tribunal are not tenable in laws for the reason that any order passed on the application for interim relief has no binding force while deciding the main case. The main case has to be decided on the pleadings, evidence and other material on record. In my opinion, it is a fit case where the impugned award of the Tribunal dated 17.2.1993 be quashed and the case is remanded back to the tribunal for a decision on merits of the claim application.

(4). For the above said reasons and discussions the appeal is allowed. The impugned award dated 17.2.1993 is quashed and set- aside and the Tribunal is directed to decide the case afresh on merits within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order on the evidence already led by the parties or on the evidence may be led if need be.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document