HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.949 of 2003 ORAL JUDGMENT: Heard both sides. Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by I Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khammam (for brevity “the Tribunal”) by the order, dated 31.07.2002, wherein and whereunder O.P.No.74 of 2001 filed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity ‘the Act’) was allowed, awarding a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the death of one Mysa Prasad in a road accident that occurred on 26.12.2000, the New India Assurance Company Limited filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. It appears from the impugned order that there is another petition being O.P.No.73 of 2001, filed under Section 166 of the Act i.e., for fault liability, claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-, which is still pending consideration before the Tribunal, wherein larger issues are involved and are yet to be decided. As postulated under proviso 2 to Section 166 of the Act, the amount awarded towards no fault liability i.e., under Section 140 of the Act, has to be deducted from the total sum of compensation likely to be awarded at the time of final disposal of the O.P. filed under Section 166 of the Act. In a way, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in the said O.P. is only a temporary measure, which is explicit from the reasoning given by the Tribunal in the impugned order. It appears that there are as many as five claimants, who were dependants on the deceased. Hence, having regard to the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal felt it expedient to award a minimum sum of Rs.50,000/- under no fault liability to the claimants. The impugned order of the Tribunal does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this Court. However, it is made clear that the sum of compensation awarded in the said O.P., is only subject to the outcome of the final disposal of O.P.No.73 of 2001, which is filed under Section 166 of the Act. In view of the above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 26th August 2010