JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant is found to have preferred instant appeal against the judgment dated 21st July, 2010 whereby the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur dismissed the claim petition of the appellant-claimant filed under Section 166 read with section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. The facts of the case are that on 11th August, 2006, at about 1.45PM when the appellant-claimant after purchasing some articles from the shop situated opposite to the Samrat Cinema, was going towards his shop at the way side of the road, one Auto-riksha bearing registration No.RJ-14-PA-3747 suddenly emerged on wrong side and hit him. It is alleged that the offending vehicle was being driven by its driver rashly and negligently, as a result of which, the injured claimant sustained injuries. The Tribunal did not rely upon the story of accident as narrated by the claimants and observed that the contradictions seeming in the statements of witnesses with regard to accident were galore which evinced the story of accident improbable. The manner, in which the story of accident has been projected, it castes doubt about its credibility. 3. Having argued for some time, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that he did not press the appeal but canvassed that the Tribunal while dismissing the claim petition had directed the claimant to refund the amount of interim compensation i.e. Rs. 25,000/- to the Insurance Co., which was paid under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal further directed that in case the amount of 'no fault liability' i.e Rs. 25,000/- was not deposited by the claimants, the respondent No.4-Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co. Ltd. had been held entitled to make recovery thereof from him. Learned counsel implores that the Insurance Co. may be directed not to recover the said amount of 'no fault liability' from the claimants. To justify his prayer, he has cited one judgment of Apex Court rendered in the case of Indira Devi & Ors. v. Bagada Ram & Anr. reported in 2010 ACJ 2451 : ( AIR 2010 SC 2913 ) in support thereof. 4. In the case of Indira Devi & Ors. To justify his prayer, he has cited one judgment of Apex Court rendered in the case of Indira Devi & Ors. v. Bagada Ram & Anr. reported in 2010 ACJ 2451 : ( AIR 2010 SC 2913 ) in support thereof. 4. In the case of Indira Devi & Ors. (supra), the Apex Court relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court delivered in the case of Eshwarappa v. C.S.Gurushanthappa, C.A. No.7049 of 2002: ( AIR 2010 SC 2907 ) , observed that the Tribunal was patently in error, in directing for the refund of the amount of 'no fault compensation' already paid to the claimant, by the Insurance company. The High Court was equally in error in missing out this grave mistake in the judgment passed by the Claims Tribunal and not setting it aside. 5. In the above case, one Motorcyclist dashed against the rear part of the Truck and died on the spot. The Tribunal held that the accident took place due to the careless and negligent driving of the motorcyclist. Hence, he was not entitled to claim any compensation from the Insurance Co. and directed the claimant to refund the amount of 'no fault liability' to the Insurance Co. The claimants preferred an appeal against the judgment of Tribunal and the High Court also while dismissing the appeal observed that the Insurance Co. was entitled to make recovery of amount of 'no fault liability' paid under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Apex Court held that the compensation under Section 140 of the Act was regardless of any wrongful act, neglect or default of the person in respect of whose death claim was made and thus, held that the order of the Tribunal in so far as it permitted the Insurance Co. to recover the amount of interim compensation along with the interest from the claimants-appellant, was erroneous and unsustainable. 6. The case of the appellant is squarely covered by the judgment of Indira Devi (Supra) delivered by the Supreme Court, hence, the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be partly allowed. 7. In view of above, the appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed. 6. The case of the appellant is squarely covered by the judgment of Indira Devi (Supra) delivered by the Supreme Court, hence, the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be partly allowed. 7. In view of above, the appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed. The impugned judgment dated 21st July, 2010 rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur with regard to the dismissal of the claim petition is upheld, but the order with regard to refund of 'no fault compensation' and the right given to the Insurance Co. to make recovery of interim compensation from the claimants, is set aside. 8. With the afore-stated directions, the appeal stands disposed of accordingly.Appeal partly allowed. *******