The main legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of Section 140 and 143 of the Motor Vehicles Act to claims for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and the requirement of an elaborate inquiry for disposing of applications for interim compensation.

M. M. DAS, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation act, 1923 preferred by the insurance company against an interim award made in favour of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by the commissioner for Workmen's Compensation directing payment of Rs. 50,000.

( 2 ) THE Workmen's Compensation Case no. 7 of 1999 has been filed by the legal representatives of the deceased Angada kalo (respondent Nos. 1 and 2) claiming compensation of Rs. 2,00,000, before the workmen's Compensation Commissioner-cum-Asst. Labour Commissioner, Sambal-pur. During the pendency of the said case, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed application under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988 for grant of interim compensation under no fault liability in their favour. The Commissioner by the impugned order dated 24. 7. 99 taking into consideration the documents filed on behalf of respondents claimants and after hearing the parties has directed the appellant insurer to deposit rs. 50,000 as interim compensation under section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act. Being aggrieved by the said order, the insurance company has preferred this appeal under section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act.

( 3 ) MR. S. D. Das, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant insurance company vehemently argued that the deceased was not a workman under the insured and that the Commissioner has acted contrary to law in allowing the application for interim compensation under section 140 of the motor Vehicles Act even though the said provision is not applicable to a case under workmen's Compensation Act. Mr. Das in support of his contention has relied upon the decision in case of P. S. Metal Works v. Rezwan Ali, 2002 ACJ 1495 (MP ).

( 4 ) PER contra, Mr. D. Rajan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who are the claimants, submitted that since no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal, the appeal is not maintainable under section 30 of the workmen's Compensation Act. He further contended that in view of the provision of sections 140 and 143 of the Motor vehicles Act, the application filed by the respondents-claimants for interim compensation is maintainable. He further relied upon the decision in the case of Oriental insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lalita Samal, 1999 acj 1447 (Orissa), of this court. Perusal of the impugned order discloses that Workmen's compensation Case Nos. 7 and 8 of 1999 are being heard analogously by the commissioner in which issues have been framed. The Commissioner on considering the application filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for grant of interim compensation under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles act, as well as the documents filed by the claimants, such as, certified copies of the f. I. R. , case diary, zimanama and the postmortem report and also taking into consideration the provisions of section 140 of the motor Vehicles Act came to a conclusion that the appellant insurer is liable to pay the interim compensation of Rs. 50,000 to respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

( 5 ) SECTION 143 of Motor Vehicles Act provides that the provisions of Chapter 10 of the said Act shall also apply in relation to any claim for compensation in respect of death or permanent disablement of any person under Workmen's Compensation act, 1923, resulting from an accident of a nature referred to in sub-section (1) of section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act and for that purpose, the said provision shall, with necessary modifications, be deemed to form part of that Act (Workmen's Compensation Act ).

( 6 ) A bare reading of the above provisions of motor Vehicles Act clearly shows that an application under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act is maintainable in a case filed under the Workmen's compensation Act for award of compensation. In the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lalita Samal, 1999 ACJ 1447 (Orissa), this court while dealing with a similar question has held thus:

" (3) The learned counsel for the appellant initially contended that when