Judgment M.R. Shah, J.—Admit. Mr. Sunil Parikh, learned Advocate waives service of notice of admission on behalf of Respondent No. 3 – The New India Insurance Company Limited. Though served, nobody appears on behalf of Respondent No. 2 – owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. 2. Mr. Falgun Brahmbhatt, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant seeks permission to delete Respondent No. 1, who is Driver of the vehicle involved in the accident so far as the present appeal is concerned. Permission is accordingly granted. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present First Appeal is taken up for final hearing today and paper-book and printing is dispensed with as the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for deciding the same afresh on merits. 4. The present First Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been preferred by the appellant herein to quash and set aside the impugned judgement and award dated 08/01/2010 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 755 of 2006, by which, learned Tribunal has dismissed the said claim petition on the ground that though sufficient opportunities were given to the claimant to file his oral evidence, he has not filed his oral evidence by way of filing affidavit or has not given deposition on oath. 5. Mr. Falgun Brahmbhatt, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that as such on 08/01/2010 father of the leaned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant herein – original claimant was hospitalized and in his absence, the impugned order has been passed dismissing the claim petition. As such there was no malafide intention of not producing oral evidence by way of affidavit as well as not giving deposition on oath. Therefore, it is requested to quash and set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for deciding the same afresh in accordance with law and on merits on even imposing reasonable cost. Therefore, it is requested to give one additional opportunity to the appellant to lead the evidence and to proceed further with the claim petition on merits. Mr. Brahmbhatt, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has requested to pass suitable order with respect to the amount of Rs. Therefore, it is requested to give one additional opportunity to the appellant to lead the evidence and to proceed further with the claim petition on merits. Mr. Brahmbhatt, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has requested to pass suitable order with respect to the amount of Rs. 15,000/-, which is already deposited by him, pursuant to the order dated 23/02/2011 passed by this Court. 6. Mr. Sunil Parikh, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 3 – Insurance Company has submitted that if this Court is inclined to quash and set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Tribunal for deciding the claim petition on merits, in that case, an appropriate order shall be passed denying the interest on the amount of compensation to be awarded by the Tribunal as for negligence on the part of the claimant, the Insurance Company should not be made responsible. Mr. Parikh, learned advocate appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 3 has also requested to pass appropriate order transferring the amount of cost, deposited by the appellant to Gujarat High Court Legal Services Committee. 7. Having heard Mr. Falgun Brahmbhatt, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant – original claimant and Mr. Sunil Parikh, learned advocate appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 3 – Insurance Company and considering the facts as narrated hereinabove, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant – original claimant may be given one additional chance to lead the evidence and claim the compensation on merits and the matter may be remanded to the Tribunal for deciding the claim petition afresh on merits on imposing reasonable costs and with suitable observation with respect to interest on the amount of compensation to be awarded by the Tribunal, if any. It appears that pursuant to the order passed by this Court dated 23/02/2011, the appellant has already deposited a sum of Rs. 15,000/- with the Registry of this Court. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respective parties have requested to pass appropriate order to transfer the same to the Gujarat High Court Legal Services Committee. 8. Mr. It appears that pursuant to the order passed by this Court dated 23/02/2011, the appellant has already deposited a sum of Rs. 15,000/- with the Registry of this Court. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respective parties have requested to pass appropriate order to transfer the same to the Gujarat High Court Legal Services Committee. 8. Mr. Brahmbhatt, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has stated at the bar that he has no objection if the appellant is denied the interest on the amount of compensation to be awarded by the learned Tribunal from the date of passing of the impugned order till July, 2011. 9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, more particularly considering the fact that the claim petition has been preferred under the provision of Motor Vehicles Act, the impugned judgement and award dated 08/01/2010 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 755 of 2006 is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal to decide and dispose of the same in accordance with law and on merits. However, it is observed and directed that the appellant shall not claim any interest on the amount of compensation to be awarded by the Tribunal if any for the period from January, 2010 till July, 2011. The amount of Rs. 15,000/-, which is already deposited by the appellant, pursuant to the order passed by this Court, Registry is directed to transmit the same to the Gujarat High Court Legal Services Committee immediately. The present First Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. P P P P P