The deposit of interim compensation under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, merges in the final award under section 166, and therefore, the payment of interim compensation can be considered as a deposit for the purpose of preferring an appeal under section 173.

( 1 ) THIS appeal and the connected appeal Misc. Appeal no. 218 of 1997 between the same parties under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988 preferred by the insurance company has been filed against the common award dated 2. 1. 1997 passed in two Claim petition Nos. 77 and 78 of 1990 respectively arising out of the same accident by the First Addl. Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Katni and is being decided by this common judgment with connected appeal M. A. No. 306 of 1997, Gopal Singh v. Rajendra Kumar Joli and M. A. No. 307 of 1997, Gopal Singh v. Rajendra Kumar joli, filed by the claimants in the two claim cases. The appellant insurance company in this appeal and in connected M. A. No. 218 of 1997 filed by it, prays for a direction that it be absolved from the liability for payment of compensation on the ground that on the date and time of accident, there was no insurance coverage. The other two connected appeals M. A. Nos. 306 and 307 of 1997 have been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded for two deaths in the accident.

( 2 ) ON 29. 4. 1990 in the early hours of morning at about 6. 30 Nanhi alias Durgesh, wife of claimant Gopal Singh with her daughter Shweta and son Abhishek were going in Fiat car No. UAI 3142 from jabalpur to Kanpur. In the course of their journey, at some place within the jurisdiction of Katni court, truck No. MKA 1004 coming from opposite direction collided with the car resulting in death of Nanhi alias Durgesh aged 32 years and child abhishek aged 4 years. The truck was owned by Rajendra Kumar Joli, respondent No. 3, driven by Ravi Kumar Sahni, respondent No. 4 and insured by the appellant insurance company.

( 3 ) IN the two separate claim petitions filed by the claimant Gopal Singh and his daughter Shweta for death of Nanhi and abhishek, the Claims Tribunal rejected the plea taken by the insurance company that there was no insurance coverage to the truck involved in the accident on the date and time mentioned above. On examining the contents of the insurance cover note and scrutinising the oral evidence led on behalf of the insurance company, the claims Tribunal held the insurance company liable jointly with owner and driver for payment of compensation,

( 4 ) ON the basis of evidence led by the claimants, the Claims Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 73,200 for the death of abhishek and a sum of Rs. 70,200 for the death of Nanhi alias Durgesh.

( 5 ) WE shall first take up for decision misc. Appeal Nos. 217 and 218 of 1997 filed by the insurance company seeking its exoneration from the liability towards compensation. In the appeals preferred by the insurance company, we shall first take up for consideration the preliminary objection raised against the appeals on behalf of the owner and driver of the truck involved in the accident.

( 6 ) MR. Sanjay K. Agarwal, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, raising a preliminary objection as to the 'maintainability of the appeals filed by the insurance company submits that over and above the interim compensation of rs. 28,526 in each of the two appeals, no further amount as required by the provisions of section 173 of the Act, as a precondition of preferring appeal has been deposited by the insurance company and the appeals, therefore, deserve to be summarily dismissed on the above ground of non-deposit of the requisite amount under the Act as a pre-condition of preferring the appeal.

( 7 ) LEARNED counsel Mr. N. S. Ruprah appearing for the insurance company in the two appeals preferred by it invites attention of this court to the order-sheets dated 17. 3. 1997. This court by order dated 17. 3. 1997 passed in each of the two appeals on the statement made on behalf of the insurance company that 'interim compensation in the sum of Rs. 28,526 had already been paid'; admitted the appeal and stayed the recovery of the balance amount of compensation awarded by the tribunal in each of the two claim