KESHOTE, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. On 8th of May, 2000 the matter has come up for preliminary hearing before the Court. The Court ordered- "issue notice confined to respondent No. 5, provided the Insurance Company has paid the interim compensation to the dependents of the deceased victim. Notices be sent by registered post with A. D. after the counsel for the petitioner filed the proof of payment in the Registry. "
(2.) THE petitioner has not filed any proof of the payment of interim compensation to the dependents of the deceased victim of the motor vehicle accident. On 14th of March, 2001 the counsel who appeared for the petitioner made a statement that the interim compensation has already been paid to the claimants. This statement was taken on record. Notices were issued to respondent No. 5. The court has directed to the petitioner to produce on record the receipt of payment of the amount of interim compensation to the claimants. The petitioner has neither filed the receipt of the payment of interim compensation on record nor the process fee and notices for respondent No. 5 have been submitted. On 15. 3. 2001 the Registry has ordered to comply and put up on 30th April 2001 in case the process fee and notices are filed on or before 22. 03. 2001. On 24. 2001 a report was made by the office that process fee and notices for respondent No. 5 have not been filed. The matter was directed to be placed before the Registrar on 12. 4. 2001. On 12. 4. 2001 the matter was placed before the Registrar. Nobody was present on behalf of the petitioner. The Registrar granted two weeks time to file process fee and notices. On 13. 4. 2001 the Registrar ordered to list the case on 26. 4. 2001 with report. On 27. 4. 2001 the Office reported that Process Fee and notices for respondent No. 5 have not been filed. On 27. 4. 2001 the Registrar ordered to list the matter in the court on 29. 5. 2001. On 28. 5. 2001 the registry directed the matter to be placed before the Court on 25. 7. 2001. On 21. 7. 2001 the Office reported that the petitioner has not filed Process Fee and notices for respondent No. 5. That is how this matter has come up for hearing on 25. 7. 2001. The Court has also taken the report from the Registry whether the petitioner has produced the receipt of payment of interim compensation to the claimants or not. The Office reported that the petitioner has not produced any proof or receipt of the payment of the interim compensation to the claimants. The petitioner has not complied with the order of the Court dated 8. 5. 2000 as well as dated 14. 3. 2001. In this petition the notice was issued to the respondent No. 5 on the condition that the petitioner would pay the amount of interim compensation to the claimants and that condition has not been complied with. On 14. 3. 2001 this Court on the statement of the counsel for the petitioner has ordered to issue fresh notice to the respondent No. 5 on the specific understanding that in the meanwhile the counsel for the petitioner will submit the receipt of the payment of the interim compensation to the claimants. This order has not been complied with. The receipt has not been produced on record so it is clear that the petitioner has not paid the amount of interim compensation to the claimants and only on this ground this petition deserves to be dismissed.
(3.) THERE is another ground on which this petition deserves to be dismissed. The petitioner has not filed Process Fee and notices for respondent No. 5 from 14. 3. 2001 to date. More than sufficient time was there with the petitioner to file process fee and notice but this has not been done and this petition deserves to be dismissed for non prosecution. It is petition by the New India Assurance Company Limited (for short `the Assurance Company' ). In the petition the petitioner is challenging the order dated 2. 11. 1999 (Annexure-2) passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Behror. The Assurance Company is not an ordinary litigant. It is a State or agency of the State or the instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Insurance regarding third party of a vehicle is statutory insurance, so it is compulsory to be taken by the owner of the vehicle regarding third party. Under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short `the Act of 1988') the Assurance Company has also very limited defence to be taken in the claim petition filed by the claimants for compensation regarding death or injury in a motor vehicle accident. The reference may have to sec. 149 of the Act of 1988. The Assurance Company has to take all care in order to avoid unnecessary delay in the proceedings of the claim petition. It is also to see that its representative/advocate is not taking frivolous, baseless and unwarranted objections in the claim petition. It has to scrutinize the defence taken by the representative/advocate and should permit only those defence which are permissible to it under Sec. 149 of the Act of 1988. But, it is unfortunate that this Assurance Company for the reasons best known to it, acts in the claim matters worst then the ordinary litigant. It takes all sorts of objections and defences in the claim petition which may not be permissible to it. Not only this, it is in the habit of filing the litigation in the Court against the interlocutory orders or interim awards made by the Tribunal. Everyday the petitions filed on behalf of the Assurance Company against the order passed by the Tribunal awarding the interim compensation under Sec. 140 of the Act of 1988 to the claimants are coming up. It shows that the Assurance Company is acting in these matters totally against justice oriented approach. It is also acting contrary to what it its obligation in these matters. Where it insured the vehicle to ensure that in case any person suffers any injury or died in a motor vehicle accident, it may reimburse the liability of the owner regarding the compensation to be paid by him to the claimants or the injured as the case may be. Interlocutory order does not finally terminate the main matter. Against the interlocutory orders or the orders passed by the Tribunal under Sec. 140 of the Act no appeal or revision is provided by the Parliament to this Court. The reason is very obvious so that this order may attain finality. Interlocutory order is subject to the challenge and judicial review by this Court but in the appeal filed against final award made by the Tribunal. It is a matter of claim filed b the claimants for compensation and all endeavour is to be made by the Assurance Company to see that expeditiously the same is decided by the Tribunal. But here in this case the Assurance Company has acted totally contrary to what it is expected from it. By challenging this interlocutory order what the Assurance Company is doing to stall the final adjudication of the claim petition. This Court should not permit stalling of the final adjudication and decision in the motor vehicle accident cases at the instance of the Assurance Company by permitting it to challenge the interlocutory order. That precisely what the Assurance Company is attempting in this matter. The Assurance Company is acting contrary to the basic conception of socio economic which is underlying object and purpose of the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. ;