S.Samvatsar, J.

( 1. ) This judgment shall govern the disposal of both the aforesaid misc. appeals as they are filed against the award dated 29.11.2002 passed by the Additional Member Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Morena in Claim Case No. 105 of 2002 whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 8,75,000 as compensation to the claimants for the death of Vijay Singh Jadon, who died in a motor accident.

( 2. ) Misc. Appeal No. 231 of 2003 is filed by the insurance company against the impugned award challenging rejection of its application under section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act and challenging the findings on quantum and negligence while Misc. Appeal No. 510 of 2003 has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation.

( 3. ) Facts of the case briefly stated are that on 27.3.2002 around 4.30 in the evening, deceased Vijay Singh Jadon along with his friend Sarnam Singh was going to Gwalior from Morena in a Maruti car bearing registration No. UP 84-A 6257. The car was driven by Sarnam Singh. When the car reached Jaderua village on Agra-Bombay Road, truck No. MP 06-G 3186 which was coming from the opposite side, driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against Maruti car. Due to collision, Vijay Singh Jadon sustained grievous injuries and he died on the spot. ( 4. ) The claimants filed a claim petition claiming compensation for the death of Vijay Singh Jadon. According to them, the deceased was an advocate by profession and he was practising at Morena. He was earning Rs. 12,000 per month from the profession and maintaining family. He was 47 years of age at the time of the accident and was hale and hearty.

( 5. ) Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, i.e., owner and driver of the truck, after service of the notice, put in their appearance. Respondent No. 1 filed her written statement. But respondent No. 2 without filing the written statement contested the proceedings.

( 6. ) Insurance company filed an application before the Claims Tribunal under section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for brevity, the Act) for defending the claim on all grounds, but the same was rejected by the Claims Tribunal vide order dated 31.10.2002 and the Claims Tribunal after recording the evidence and assessing the same has awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,75,000 to the claimants.

( 7. ) Insurance company has filed Misc. Appeal No. 231 of 2003 challenging the findings arrived at by the Tribunal as well as order dated 31.10.2002 passed by the Claims Tribunal rejecting their application under section 170 of the Act.

( 8. ) The learned counsel for the appellant insurance company submitted that learned Claims Tribunal has committed an error in rejecting their application for defending the case on all grounds. He contended that dismissal of the application of the insurance company can be challenged by it in appeal at the time of challenging the final award. In support of his contention, he relied upon a Division Bench decision of this court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Manisha Chaturvedi, 2007 ACJ 1177 (MP). In para 14 of the said judgment, the Division Bench has held that while deciding the appeal against final award the court can look into the correctness of the order passed by the Tribunal with respect to rejection of the prayer to raise the defence under section 170 of the Act.

( 9. ) Learned counsel for the respondents, however, contended that the order dated 31.10.2002 has attained finality and now cannot be challenged in this appeal.

( 10. ) So far as challenge to the order dated 31.10.2002 rejecting the permission to defend is concerned, said order is an interim order and it is well settled principle of law that all the interim orders passed in the matter can be challenged with the final judgment. Hence, the order dated 31.10.2002 which is in the nature of interlocutory order, can certainly be challenged at the time of challenging the award on merits.

( 11. ) The question in the present appeal is whe