JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been preferred by the claimants aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 29.3.2007 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara ('the Tribunal'). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the claimants filed a claim petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') seeking compensation of Rs. 4,41,500/- along with interest @ 12% p.a. for the death of Shamsad @ Shamsuddin on 25.4.2001. It appears that during the pendency of the said claim petition under Section 163A of the Act, interim award under Section 140 of the Act was passed on 14.7.2003, whereby the insurer was directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- as interim award. After evidence was led by the parties on the issues framed by the Tribunal, while deciding the said claim, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that as the claimants have accepted the award of Rs. 50,000/- under Section 140 of the Act, the claim petition under Section 163A of the Act was not maintainable and, therefore, dismissed the claim petition. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the entire approach of the Tribunal has been defective, inasmuch as, the claim petition was filed under Section 163A of the Act and no reference to Section 140 of the Act was made and merely because an interim award has been passed under Section 140 of the Act, it cannot be said that the appellants have abandoned their claim under Section 163A of the Act and, therefore, the award impugned deserves to be set aside and the matter deserves to be remanded back to the Tribunal for consideration on merits. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Balu Lal v. Kamlesh Kumar and Ors., S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2598/2007, decided on 28.5.2008. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that once the award under Section 140 of the Act was accepted/received by the claimants, it was not open for them, thereafter, to pursue the application under Section 163A of the Act. Appeal No.2598/2007, decided on 28.5.2008. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that once the award under Section 140 of the Act was accepted/received by the claimants, it was not open for them, thereafter, to pursue the application under Section 163A of the Act. It was further submitted that while award passed under Section 140 of the Act can be adjusted in a case when the application has been filed under Section 166 of the Act, the same cannot be adjusted in a case where the claim petition is preferred under Section 163A of the Act and in that view of the matter, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the claim petition. 6. Having considered the submissions made at the Bar and on perusal of the record, the award impugned passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained. While passing the interim award under Section 140 of the Act, the Tribunal passed the following order:- " vr% izkFkhZx.k ds i{k esa rFkk foi{khx.k ds fo:) la;qDr% i`Fkdr% 50]000@& :i;s dk varfje vokMZ ikfjr fd;k tkrk gSA vnk;xh vkt ls ,d ekg esa dh tkos] vU;Fkk izkFkhZx.k N% izfr'kr% okf"kZd lk/kkj.k C;kt izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSA jkf'k izkIr gksus ij izkFkhZ;k 'kEek dks chl gtkj :i; uxj fn;s tkos] izkFkhZx.k gyhek] nkmn [kka dks Hkh nl gtkj :i;s uxn fn;s tkos vkSj vkf'kd ds uke ij chl gtkj :i;s dh ,Q0Mh0vkj0 pkSng o"kZ ds fy;s djkbZ tkosA vkns'k lquk;k x;kA i=koyh okLrs dk;eh rufd;kr fn0 08-9-2003 dks is'k gksA " (emphasis supplied) 7. A look at the said award reveals that it has been observed that sum of Rs. 50,000/- be paid as interim award and thereafter the main case has been fixed for framing of issues. Thereafter, in fact, issues were framed and evidence was led by the parties. From the language of the order passed on 14.7.2003, it is clear that the said amount was merely an interim award and the said award cannot be said to be a final award under Section 140 of the Act. 8. Thereafter, in fact, issues were framed and evidence was led by the parties. From the language of the order passed on 14.7.2003, it is clear that the said amount was merely an interim award and the said award cannot be said to be a final award under Section 140 of the Act. 8. In the similar circumstances, this Court in the case of Balu Lal (supra) has held as under:- "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, there upon 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 section 163-A or under section 166 of M.V. Act. But in this case, it is clear that the claimant has filed an application under section 163-A of the M.V. Act. The learned Tribunal was expected to dispose of this claim petition on merit under section 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 section 140 of the M.C. 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 15.01.2003 but by mere granting interim relief it does not mean that he has applied under section 140 of M.V. Act. It is revealed from the record that the learned tribunal has awarded interim relief of Rs. 50,000/- to claimant vide order dated 15.01.2003 but by mere granting interim relief it does not mean that he has applied under section 140 of M.V. Act. 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 section 163-A or under section 166 of the M.V. Act but not under both, but in the present case the applicant has not filed claim petition under both the sections, under section 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. 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." 9. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed. The impugned award is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for passing a fresh award under Section 163A of the Act and decide more specifically issue No.2. The parties would appear before the Tribunal on 15.3.2013. 10. Record be sent back to the Tribunal, immediately. The proceedings before the Tribunal would be decided expeditiously preferably within a period of three months.Appeal Allowed. *******