Akil Abdul Hamid Kureshi, J.

1. These appeals are placed before the Division Bench on references made by the learned Single Judges on certain questions of law. A brief background would be needed to appreciate the questions referred.

2. All the appeals arise out of the judgments passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals in claim petitions filed by the claimants under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. ("the MV Act" for short) for death or bodily injuries caused in motor accidents. These claimants had also claimed compensation under section 140 of the MV Act on the basis of no fault liability. The insurance companies who had insured the vehicles involved in the motor accidents had either raised statutory defences available under section 149 of the MV Act or in some cases differed their defences to be raised at the time of contesting the claim petitions under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Claims Tribunal while awarding compensation under section 140 of the MV Act in most of the cases where such defence was taken, made endorsements differing the consideration of statutory defences raised by the insurance companies at the time of deciding the claim petitions under section 166 of the MV Act. The issue pertains to the applicability of the principle of res judicata insofar as the defences of the insurance companies are concerned while the Claims Tribunals proceeded to decide the main claim petitions under section 166 of the MV Act.

3. In case of Munshiram D. Anand v. Pravinsinh Prabhatsinh Anand Society Gedh, Jamnagar reported in AIR 1997 Gujarat 60, learned Single Judge of this Court opined that lodging of the claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is not a condition precedent for filing petition under section 140 of the Act on the basis of no fault liability. Similar view was expressed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Maganlal Hirabhai Patel and others reported in 1999 ACJ 268.

4. In case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Ahmedabad v. Mithakhan Dinakhan Notiyar and ors. reported in 1995 (2) GLR 1111, learned Single Judge held that the proceedings under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act are summary in nature and the Claims Tribunal is not required to decide the objections raised by the insurance company by permitting the insurance company to lead evidences. This view was followed and reiterated later on by a learned Single Judge in case of Mahendrakumar Kalyanjibhai v. Haresh Bipinchandra Pathak and anr. reported in 1998 (2) GLR 1199. These decisions in case of Mithakhan Dinakhan Notiyar and ors.(supra) and Mahendrakumar Kalyanjibhai (supra) came up for consideration before the Full Bench of this Court in case of United India Insurance Co. ltd. v. Kadviben Udabhai Rathwa and Anr. reported in 2006 (2) GLH 106. The Full Bench approved the view expressed by the learned Single Judges in the said decisions.

5. In case of Yallwwa and ors. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and anr. reported in AIR 2007 Supreme Court 2582, the Supreme Court in context of the question whether an order passed by the Claims Tribunal under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act is appealable under section 173 or not, made certain observations suggesting that in the proceedings under section 140 of the Act, the insurance company could raise its statutory defences available under section 149(2) and the Claims Tribunal would be duty bound to consider the same.

6. In case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sidikbhai Ukabhai Solanki and anr. reported in 2012 (2) GLH 465, the Claims Tribunal had allowed the claimants' application under section 140 of the MV Act. However, at the stage of deciding claim petition under section 166, the Tribunal absolved the insurance company on the grounds that the injured were travelling in the goods vehicle without carrying their goods and that the driver of the vehicle did not have a valid license. The learned Single Judge held