A.G. Qureshi, J. --- 1. This order shall govern the decision of M.A. No. 264 of 90 (Shankar Bhai & 6 others v. Abdul Ajiz & another) and M.A. No. 265 of 1990 (Shantilal & two others v. Abdul Ajiz and another) filed by the appellants aggrieved by the order of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore dated 21.12.1989 in claim case No. 21 of 88 and 28 of 1988. In both the cases the claimants have filed their claim petition before the lower Tribunal for claiming compensation against the respondents on the basis of an accident occurred on 25.11.87, alleging that the truck belonging to respondent No. 2 and insured by respondent No. 3 dashed against the matador in which the claimants were travelling. The claim petitions are still pending for decision.

2. During the pendency of the petitions the appellants filed applications under section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act for interim award. The learned Lower Tribunal was, however, of the view that the allegations of the claimants have been denied by the respondents and there is a counter allegation that the driver of the matador in which the claimants were travelling actually dashed against the truck belonging to the respondent No. 1 and insured with respondent No.2. The learned Tribunal was of the opinion that it has yet to be decided as to which vehicle dashed against the other vehicle and the owner and the Insurance Co. of the vehicle in which the claimants were travelling has not been made a party. Therefore, no interim award under section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 can be given. The appellants are aggrieved by the aforesaid orders.

3. According to Shri Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals, when a claimant has been held entitled to get compensation on the ground of no fault liability as envisaged in section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, then the question of deciding the responsibility of the accident would not arise. It is also not necessary for the claimants to implead the owner and driver of the other vehicle as party because the appellants have a choice to make a claim against any of the parties.

4. On the other hand Shri Vyas, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has argued that a person has a choice to file a claim against any of the vehicle involved in the accident provided they are joint tort feasors. Here, in the instant case, the respondent No. 2 denies the claim of being in any was a joint tort feasor. Therefore, the principle of f1ling a claim against any of the joint for feasors is not applicable in the instant case.

5. In the instant case we are concerned only with the order of interim relief and for that purpose we have to take into consideration the language of section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (which was applicable at the time of the impugned order). Section 92-A reads as under:

"92-A. Liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle of no fault -- (1) Where the death or permanent disablement of any person has resulted from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles, the owner of the vehicle shall, or as the case may be, the owners of the vehicles shall, jointly and severally, be liable to pay compensation in respect of such death or disablement in accordance with the provisions of this section.

(2) The amount of compensation which shall be payable under subsection (1) in respect of the death of any person shall be a fixed sum of fifteen thousand rupees and the amount of compensation payable under that sub-section in respect of the permanent disablement of any person shall be a fixed sum of seven thousand five hundred rupees.

(3) In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead and establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner or owners of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other perso