JUDGMENT :

(1.) By way of this writ petition, the petitioners - original claimants have prayed for the following reliefs:

"(A) Your Lordships be pleased to admit and allow this petition.

(B) Your Lordships be pleased to pass an appropriate order to quash and set aside the order passed by the Ld. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Morbi in application at Exh. 20 in MACP No.51/2018 and thereby passing direction to re-join the respondent no.2 herein as opponent no.2 in the MACP NO.51/2018 and decide claim petition on merits allowing the parties to lead sufficient evidence.

(C) Your Lordships be pleased to stay the proceedings of the learned Tribunal till the pendency of this application.

(D) Your Lordships be pleased to pass such other and further orders may be deemed just and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of the justice."

(2.) Facts, in nutshell, enumerated as under:

[2.1] An unfortunate accident occurred on 31st September 2017, wherein the deceased Vasant Premjibhai Munjat was driving a Scorpio car bearing registration No.GJ-3DG-8224 from Mitana - Chhatar village, in which, due to technical problem, fire took place and the deceased Vasant Premjibhai Munjat received serious burn injuries and subsequently, succumbed to those injuries.

[2.2] The petitioners - original claimants approached the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking, inter alia, compensation of Rs.15 Lakh for untimely death of deceased Vasant Premjibhai Munjat. Upon service of notice, the respondent No.2 herein - original defendant No.2 - Insurance Company appeared before the Tribunal and submitted an application below Exhibit : 20 praying, inter alia, deletion from the claim petition mainly on the ground that the deceased is not a third party and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable.

[2.3] The learned M.A.C. Tribunal (Main), Principal District Judge, Morbi, after having considered submissions of the respective parties, allowed the application at Exhibit : 20 vide its order dated 25th February 2021 directing deletion of the Insurance Company from the claim proceedings.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioners - original claimants have approached this Court by way of the present writ petition.

(4.) I have heard Mr. Nishit A. Bhalodi, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners and Ms. Kirti S. Pathak, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.2.

(5.) Mr. Bhalodi submitted that the order passed by the Tribunal is not tenable in the eyes of law and thereby the Tribunal has committed a serious error by deleting the Insurance Company from the claim proceedings. Mr. Bhalodi submitted that the Tribunal could not have deleted the Insurance Company at interim stage. He submitted that so as to ascertain the liability of the Insurance Company, proper evidence requires to be led before the Tribunal. According to Mr. Bhalodi, the claim petition cannot be decided in piecemeal. Mr. Bhalodi submitted that the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act are beneficial in nature and the proceeding is summary in nature. Mr. Bhalodi submitted that at the time of deciding the claim petition, strict proof of the Evidence Act does not apply. Mr. Bhalodi also submitted that the policy in question was "Private Car Package Policy", wherein premium for "legal liability to paid driver", "PA cover for owner driver", and "unnamed PA cover for 7 persons" was paid. According to Mr. Bhalodi, therefore, the vehicle was fully insured with the Insurance Company and thus, the Tribunal could not have, at interim stage, without leading evidence, deleted the Insurance Company from the claim proceedings.

(6.) By making above submissions, Mr. Bhalodi has urged this Court to allow the present writ petition by quashing and setting aside the impugned order passed by the Tribunal.

(7.) Per contra, Ms. Pathak, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.2 - Insurance Company has vehementl