ORDER : RAJESH H. SHUKLA, J. 1. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioners under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India as well as under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for the prayers: "(A) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, and thereupon be pleased to set aside the order dated 14th June, 2011, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Paten, below exhibit 24 in MACP No.66 of 2003 and thereupon be pleased to allow the petitioners to convert/amend the claim petition from section 166 to 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. (B) That pending and final disposal of this Special Civil Application this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the order dated 14th June, 2011, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patan, below exhibit 24 in MACP No.66 of 2003 and thereupon be pleased to stay the further proceedings of MACP No. 66 of 2011 filed before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Patan. And (C) ......" 2. Heard learned Advocate Shri Rakesh R. Patel for the petitioners and learned Advocate Shri G.C.Mazmudar for Respondent No.2. 3. Learned Advocate Shri Rakesh R. Patel for the Petitioners has referred to the impugned order and submitted that the Application at Annexure-B was filed by the petitioners/original applicants for claiming the compensation under Section 166 of the Act. The MACT, Patan vide impugned order rejected the said application which has lead to filing of the present petition. Learned Advocate Shri Patel has submitted that the claimants are entitled to have the option and the same aspect has been considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment reported in (2001) 5 SCC 175 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Hansrajbhai v. Kodala and ors. He has further referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 2004 (1) G.L.H. 246 , National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mukeshbhai Bhalchandrabhai Jani, Decd.. Through heirs Ranjan and submitted that the same issue was addressed and discussed in this judgment and the contention which was sought to be raised have been negatived. Ltd. v. Mukeshbhai Bhalchandrabhai Jani, Decd.. Through heirs Ranjan and submitted that the same issue was addressed and discussed in this judgment and the contention which was sought to be raised have been negatived. He pointedly referred to the observations: ".......the claimant can move the Court for amendment of his claim petition filed under Section 166 to that of a petition under Section 163-A at any stage of the proceedings and it would be for the concerned Court to pass an order on that application in accordance with law, provided he satisfies other conditions such as the income factor, etc. and the only bar provided for exercising an option in the matter of filing a claim petition for compensation is to be found in Section 163-B which states, 'where a person is entitled to claim compensation under Section 140 and Section 163-A, he shall file the claim under either of the said sections and not under both'." Therefore, learned Advocate Shri Rakesh Patel has submitted that the present petition may be allowed. He has also referred to and relied upon the judgment reported in AIR 2004 Guj 157 , Narshiji Nagaji Majirana v. Mangilal Amturam Bishnoi and Ors. 4. Learned Advocate Shri G.C. Mazmudar for the Respondent has made a feeble attempt to resist the petition referring to the impugned order and submitted that it is an abuse of the legal provision inasmuch as when it has been realised that under Section 166 is required to prove the negligence the permission is sought to convert such application under Section 163-A which does not require it to prove the negligence aspect. He therefore submitted that such purpose or the petition filed once under the provisions of Section 166 of the Act may not be allowed to be converted in this manner. 5. Though the submissions have been made, both the petitions under Section 166 of the Act as well as the petition under Section 163A of the Act are permissible under a law and it is for the claimant to have the option whether he would prefer to file a petition under Section 166 of the Act, which does not provide any limit of claim of compensation or whether he would file a petition under Section 163-A of the Act, which provide a limit for the compensation based on structured formula. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment reported in 2001 (5) SCC 175 (supra) has considered the legislative history and clearly made the observation referring to the objects and reasons for the provisions under Section 163-A. Therefore, considering such objects, reason and the underlying purpose of the legislature, there is no reason why such an option could be restricted once the application is preferred under a different provision. In fact this very issue, as rightly submitted, has been addressed by the Division Bench of this Court and the Hon'ble Division Bench in a judgment reported in 2004 (1) GLH 246 (supra) has expressly provided that such a conversion is permissible at any stage. Therefore, the submission made by learned Advocate Shri Mazmudar that even if it is assumed that the claimant has two options - either to file a petition under Section 166 of the Act or under Section 163-A of the Act, it is available at the initial stage, but once having filed the petition under Section 166 of the Act, he cannot convert such petition, cannot be sustained in view of the aforesaid observation of the Hon'ble Division Bench. Further, as discussed above, considering the underlying policy of the legislature and the discussion and the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment reported in 2001 (5) SCC 175 (supra) and the interpretation has to be liberal as it is a beneficial legislation. The submission that it is trying to get out of the statutory provision regarding establishment of the negligence under Section 166 of the Act is misconceived inasmuch as if the law permits an option to the claimant/applicant, he can have a recourse as provided in law subject to all limitations including the ceiling or the limit for claiming compensation under Section 163-A of the Act based on structured formula. In fact the legislature, having considered the relevant aspects, has enacted Section 163-A based on structured formula in order to provide compensation, where the death has occurred. At the same time it has also put a ceiling based on structured formula which would balance the rival claims or the liability. Therefore, the present petition deserves to be allowed and the prayer in terms of paragraph 11(A) deserves to be granted. 6. At the same time it has also put a ceiling based on structured formula which would balance the rival claims or the liability. Therefore, the present petition deserves to be allowed and the prayer in terms of paragraph 11(A) deserves to be granted. 6. Accordingly, the impugned order passed below Exhibit 24 in MACP No. 66 of 2003 by the MACT, Patan dated 14.6.2011 is hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioners/original claimants are permitted to convert the petition as prayed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act. 7. Rule is made absolute.