JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by the claimant appellant against the judgment and award dated 24.8.2007 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara in civil Misc. Case No. 625/2004 by which the learned Judge maintained the claim up to interim award of Rs. 50,000/- and dismissed the claim application filed under Sec. 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 'the M.V. Act of 1988'). 2. Brief facts of the case are like this, it is revealed from the claim petition that a claim petition under Sec. 163-A of the M.V. Act, was filed by the appellant to award compensation for the death of his wife Smt. Chanla Devi @ Chanda Devi, who died in motor vehicular accident occurred on 28.08.2001. The appellant stated in his application that at the time of accident, she was of 19 years and was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month and due to untimely death in motor accident, he suffered monitory loss as well as suffered mental shock and agony. On these has is a claim of Rs. 4,65,500/- was claimed. 3. Notices of claim petition were issued. Respondent Insurance Company only filed reply. In reply it denied the responsibility of causing any accident due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle and also denied the responsibility of paying compensation to the claimant. The Insurance Company also took defence pleas in reply that driver of the offending vehicle, was not having valid and effective licence at the time of accident, thus that was a breach of terms of policy and insurer cannot be made responsible for payment of compensation. The learned Tribunal, on the basis of pleading of the parties, framed relevant issues and after giving opportunity for proving issues to both the parities, concluded the matter by holding that the concerned vehicle No. R.J.06-C-6268 was involved in accident and Smt. Chanta @ Chanda Devi died out of use of that vehicle, therefore, held responsible for causing accident to its driver and held responsible for the compensation to the owner and Insurance Company of the vehicle. The learned Tribunal further under issue No. 3 held that as the appellant has received the compensation under Sec. 140 of the M.V. Act, awarded vide order dated 15.01.2003 Rs. 50,000/- therefore, the claim under Sec. 163-A of the M.V. Act, is not maintainable. The learned Tribunal further under issue No. 3 held that as the appellant has received the compensation under Sec. 140 of the M.V. Act, awarded vide order dated 15.01.2003 Rs. 50,000/- therefore, the claim under Sec. 163-A of the M.V. Act, is not maintainable. Thus, vide judgment and award dated 24.08.2007 dismissed the claim petition. 4. Being felt aggrieved, by the judgment dated 24.08.2007 the claimant appellant filed the aforesaid appeal. Notice of appeal was given to the respondents. Record of the case was called for and arguments were heard. 5. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the claimant-appellant submitted that the learned lower Court has not considered and appreciated the material on record and contentions placed before them and have wrongly concluded the issue that the claim petition under Sec. 163-A of the M.V. Act, in the given circumstances, is not maintainable. 6. It was contended that the learned Tribunal has decided this point under issue No. 3 which was originally framed on the defence pleas taken by the Insurance Company that the driver of the concerned offending vehicle, was not having valid and effective licence on the day of occurrence. It was further urged that there was no plea of the Insurance Company in this respect that the petition under Sec. 163-A is not maintainable but the learned Tribunal, on wrong presumption and assumption, under the garb of issue No.3, decided the issue holding that the main claim petition is not maintainable. It was urged that the learned Tribunal has not correctly appreciated the object behind these provisions and the settled propositions of law in this respect. 7. The learned counsel further contended that the applicant has applied claim petition under Sec. 163-A of the M.V. Act and while claiming relief, though the claimant has mentioned that interim relief may be awarded, but it cannot be inferred that he has moved claim application under Sec. 140 of the M.V. Act. Further in these circumstances, if the learned Tribunal has awarded any amount under interim relief, then claim petition filed by claimant under Sec. 163-A of the M.V. Act cannot he held non-maintainable, at the most at the time of passing final award the amount awarded as an interim relief may be deducted. It was urged that the learned Tribunal should have disposed of the application on merit but without applying correct way, wrongly dismissed the application. It was urged that the learned Tribunal should have disposed of the application on merit but without applying correct way, wrongly dismissed the application. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant also contended that the learned Tribunal has wrongly applied the ratio decided in judgment given in Decpal Grishbhai Soni v. United India Insurance Company Ltd., 2004 R.A.R. (SC) 95 as the case was related to option to claimant for filing claim application under Sec. 163-A or 166 of the M.V. Act but not under both the sections, that was not the position in present case. Thus, the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is not sustainable. 9. On the basis of above submissions, it was urged that the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal is not in accordance with provisions of law and liable to be quashed and that may be quashed and appeal may be allowed. 10. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondents refuted the contentions and submitted that the appellant has accepted the amount awarded under interim relief. Therefore, the application under Sec. 163-A of the M.V. Act is rightly held non-maintainable. Thus, it was prayed that the appeal may be dismissed. 11. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record of the case as well as findings and conclusion drawn by the learned Tribunal, also perused the judgment discussed by the learned Tribunal and the relevant provisions of the M.V. Act. 12. From the perusal of the original claim petition it is clear that the claimant-appellant has moved claim application under Sec. 163-A of the M.V. Act for awarding adequate compensation and the learned Tribunal has proceeded in case under Sec. 163-A of the M.V. Act. The learned Tribunal, during proceedings, on 15.01.2003 awarded interim relief of Rs. 50,000/- to the claimant. It is also not disputed that this amount has not been received by the appellant. Further the learned Tribunal framed the issue after awarding interim relief and has proceeded the case by taking evidence and case was finally heard. 13. At the time of final hearing, learned Tribunal, while deciding issue No.3, which was originally framed on the defence plea taken by the Insurance Company was that the driver was not having effective driving licence and that has not been proved by producing proper evidence on the part of the Insurance Company. 13. At the time of final hearing, learned Tribunal, while deciding issue No.3, which was originally framed on the defence plea taken by the Insurance Company was that the driver was not having effective driving licence and that has not been proved by producing proper evidence on the part of the Insurance Company. The learned Tribunal, has awarded interim compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and the claimant has received that amount, thereupon the original claim application was held not maintainable holding that the claim application was not maintainable under both Sections 140 and 163-A of M.V. Act. But to my mind, the observation made by the learned Tribunal is not sustainable. It is correct that it was within the option of the claimant to file claim petition under Sec. 163-A or under Sec. 166 of M.V. Act. But in this case, it is clear that the claimant has filed an application under Sec. 163-A of the M.V. Act. The learned Tribunal was expected to dispose of this claim petition on merit under Sec. 163-A of the M.V.Act. But the reason assigned for dismissing the application was that the claimant has received payment under interim relief. That has been categorised as he has applied under Sec. 140 of the M.V. Act, that is not correct as per record. It is revealed from the record that the learned Tribunal has awarded interim relief of Rs. 50,000/- to claimant vide order dated 15.1.2003 but by mere granting interim relief it does not mean that he has applied under Sec. 140 of M.C. Act. 14. The learned Tribunal has relied on the judgment given in Deepal Girishbhai Soni's case (supra) but in that case it was observed that the claimant was having option to file claim either under Sec. 163-A or under Sec. 166 of the M.V.Act but not under both, hut in the present case the applicant has not filed claim petition under both sections, under Secs. 163-A and 166 of M.V. Act, thus, with utmost respect, this authority does not apply to the present matter in Issue. I am of the opinion that if any amount has been awarded under the interim relief that is always subjected to final award. The claimant cannot be held sufferer by awarding interim relief by the learned Tribunal. His claim application should not have been held non-maintainable and should not have been dismissed. 15. I am of the opinion that if any amount has been awarded under the interim relief that is always subjected to final award. The claimant cannot be held sufferer by awarding interim relief by the learned Tribunal. His claim application should not have been held non-maintainable and should not have been dismissed. 15. Thus, the conclusion drawn by the learned Judge is not sustainable, as the case has not been decided on merit. It requires a fresh consideration on the merit of the case. For that, in the interest of justice, the claim case is required to be remanded back to the concerned Tribunal. 16. On the basis of the aforesaid discussions, the appeal is partly allowed. The case is remanded back, the judgment and the award passed by the learned Tribunal is set aside. It is also expected that the learned Tribunal will expedite the matter. The amount awarded under interim award, vide order dated 15.01.2003, will be adjustable at the time of final award, if any, passed in favour of claimant appellant, hut that will not be recoverable at this stage. Costs made easy. illAppeal Partly Allowed. *******