( 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 the main petition may be treated as a petition under Section 163-A of the Act instead of a petition under Sections 140, 166 and 170 of the Act. The claimant pointed out that no orders were passed either on the original claim petition or on the application for compensation under Section 140. While making the said application Exh. 9, the petitioner relied on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Chintharbhai Sibbabhai and Ors. , 2003 (1) GLH 394 wherein this Court was pleased to observe as under:-"the Tribunal is empowered to determine the compensation which the claimants are entitled to under Section 163-A even without any application by the claimants. "

( 3 ) BY the impugned order dated 10. 4. 2003, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gandhidham Kutch has rejected the said application Exh. 9 on the ground that there is no provision for converting a petition under Section 166 into a petition under Section 163-A of the Act and that no reasonable cause is shown for making the said application. The Tribunal further observed that the claim petition is filed in the year 2003 and, therefore, its conversion into a petition under Section 163-A solely for the purpose of expeditious disposal cannot be said to be a reasonable ground for granting the application. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the original claimant has approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.

( 4 ) THE provisions of Sections 163-A and 163-B which have come up for consideration in this petition, read as under:-"163-A. SPECIAL provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis.- (1) notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be. Explanation - for the purposes of this sub-section, "permanent disability" shall have the same meaning and extent as in the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923 ). (2) in any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person. (3) the Central Government may, keeping in view the cost of living by notification in the Official Gazette, from time to time amend the Second Schedule. 163-B. OPTION to file claim in certain cases.- Where a person is entitled to claim compens