( 1 ) RULE. Ms Megha Jani, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 waives service of Rule. As far as respondent No. 1 is concerned, since he was a truck driver and does not have any conflicting interest with respondents No. 2 and 3 and the effective relief sought by the petitioner-claimant in the Motor Accident Claim Petition is against the owner and insurer of the truck in question, and since respondent No. 1 was already served earlier, the Court does not think it fit to issue notice of Rule on respondent No. 1 and to wait for him to appear. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is taken up for final disposal today.

( 2 ) THE petitioner filed Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 32 of 2003 praying for compensation on account of death of his son Mansukh Narishiji Majirana who expired in a motor vehicle accident at Gandhidham on 31. 12. 2002. The claim petition was filed under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). Within a few months of the date of filing the original claim petition under Sections 140, 166 and 170 of the Act, on 7. 4. 2003 the petitioner filed application Exh. 9 praying that th