( 1 ) THE Apex Court has observed, in paragraph 12 of the decision in the case of R. D. Hattangadi v. M/s. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. , reported in AIR 1995 SC 755 that :"12. In its very nature whenever a Tribunal or a Court is required to fix the amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves some guess work, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of the disability caused. But all the aforesaid elements have to be viewed with objective standards. "

( 2 ) HEARD learned Advocates Ms. Megha Jani appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Nirzar Desai appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1-claimant.

( 3 ) ADMITTED. Notice of admission is waived by Mr. Nirzar Desai appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1.

( 4 ) AT the time of hearing the application for condonation of delay in filing this appeal, we have considered the merits of the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Bhavnagar and therefore, with the consent of both the learned Advocates, this First Appeal is taken up for final disposal, today.

( 5 ) IN this appeal, the appellant Insurance Company has challenged the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Bhavnagar, dated 22nd September 2000 passed in M. A. C. P. No. 290 of 1997.

( 6 ) THE brief facts of the present appeal are as under: initially, the claimants had filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short), which was filed by the father of deceased Ashokbhai Chitharbhai, on behalf of himself and his minor daughter, for claiming compensation in respect of the death of Ashokbhai in a motor accident on 1 2/02/1997. According to the case of the claimants, deceased Ashokbhai along with his father, the claimant-Chitharbhai was travelling in a truck on 12/02/1997 for going towards village Sanes. Some time in the morning hours, truck No. GRR 4761 met with an accident with another truck No. UP 14 1225. The two trucks collided on the road going from Bhavnagar to Tarapur near village Nari. According to the claimant, the said accident had occurred due to the negligence on the part of the drivers of both the trucks. Ashokbhai expired on the date of the accident. The main petition Exh. 1 was filed on 11th April 1997 and along with the main petition, the claimants had also filed an application Exh. 15 praying for interim compensation of Rs. 50,000. 00 apparently under Section 140 of the Act. The Tribunal has not passed any order upon the said application, though the claimants produced certain documents with regard to the factum of the accident. Opponent No. 1 Mukeshbhai is the owner of truck No. GRR 4761, opponent No. 2 is the owner of truck No. UP 14 1225 while opponent No. 3 is Oriental Insurance Company, which incidentally, is the insurer of both the vehicles. The Insurance Company has filed the written statement at Exh. 9 on 10/06/1997. During the pendency of the main petition under Section 166 of the Act, on behalf of the claimants, an application at Exh. 172 has been filed under Section 163-A of the Act on 12/07/2000. Opponent No. 3 Insurance Company has filed the reply at Exh. 175 to the present application. The tenor of the reply at Exh. 175 is that at the time of filing the main petition, an application was already filed for interim compensation under Section 140 of the Act and thereafter, after a long time, application under Section 163-A has been filed. Therefore, according to the Insurance Company, the said application is not maintainable. A further contention has been raised by the Insurance Company that the claimants shall have to decide, at the time of filing the main petition, whether they want to claim interim compensation either under Section 140 or under Section 163-A of the Act. The Insurance Company has also raised a contention that in case the application under Section 163-A is decided, the main petition will conclude. This contention ha