M.R. Shah, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kutch, at Bhuj (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") below applications Exh. 34 and 43 and consequently below Exh. 1 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 954/1999 by which the learned Tribunal has dismissed the said claim petition rejecting the application submitted by the original claimants to treat the same under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as "MV Act"), the original claimants have preferred the present First Appeal.

2. Facts leading to the present First Appeal in nut-shell are as under:

2.1. That in vehicular accident which occurred on 27.09.1999, one Budharam Atmaram Maheshwari died. That the original claimants filed MACP No. 954/1999 before the learned Tribunal claiming the compensation for the death of deceased Budharam Atmaram Maheshwari. It appears that said application was for getting the compensation under Section 166 of the MV Act. It appears that in the said application the claimants submitted the application below Exh. 6 claiming the compensation under Section 163-A of the MV Act and by order dated 25.04.2000 the learned Tribunal awarded Rs.5,89,500/- towards compensation under Section 163-A of the MV Act with 12% interest. That the insurance company deposited Rs.6,49,599/- with the learned Tribunal pursuant to the order passed by the learned Tribunal under Section 163-A of the MV Act. However, at the relevant time the said MACP No. 954/1999 was not disposed of.

2.2. That thereafter the insurance company preferred the application Exh. 34 with a prayer to close the proceedings under Section 166 of the MV Act and to dispose of the claim petition placing reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Dhanbai Kanji Gadhvi reported in (2011) 11 SCC 513 inter-alia contending that after the judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal in the application Exh. 6, awarding compensation under Section 163-A of the MV Act, the claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act is not maintainable. The original claimants filed counter application Exh. 43 requesting to proceed further with the hearing of the main claim petition and determine the compensation under Section 166 of the MV Act. That by impugned common judgment and order the learned Tribunal has allowed the application Exh. 34 preferred by the insurance company and has dismissed the application Exh. 43 preferred by the original claimants and consequently has dismissed the claim petition while passing the order below Exh. 1 on the ground that once the claimants are already paid the compensation under Section 163-A of the MV Act, thereafter the claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act will not be maintainable.

2.3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order/s passed by the learned Tribunal, the original claimants have preferred the present First Appeal.

3. Shri MTM Hakim, learned advocate for the appellants - original claimants has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Tribunal has materially erred in dismissing the claim petition submitted by the claimants which was submitted for getting compensation under Section 166/163A of the Act.

3.1. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated the fact that at the relevant time when claimants were paid compensation under Section 163A of the Act the law was not clear and the law came to be interpreted and/or position was made clear by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepal Girishbhai Soni v. United India Insurance Co. reported in 2004 (2) GLR 1597 (SC) : AIR 2004 SC 2107. It is submitted that till then the law was not clear and the application for getting compensation under Section 163A of the Act was considered as interim compensation application only. It is submitted that even while passing order below Exh.