JUDGMENT 1. - The matter comes up on application filed by the petitioner-claimants for disposal of the writ petition in the light of judgment of this Court rendered in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Bidami & Ors., reported in MACD 2009 (2) (Raj.) 528) . 2. The application submitted by the petitioner-claimants is opposed by the counsel for the respondent No.3, Insurance Company. The Insurance Company, while opposing the prayer made in the application, has filed its reply. In reply, the Insurance Company has referred to the judgment of Apex Court rendered in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Dyamavva & Ors., [ 2013 ACJ 709 ] . 3. At this stage, with the consent of the rival parties, the matter is heard finally. 4. The petitioners (claimants) by this writ petition have assailed the order dated 21st June, 2012 (Annex.P/1), passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pali, whereby the claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1988') laid by the petitioner-claimants was consigned to record and no adjudication was made by the learned Tribunal. While considering the verdict in Smt. Bidami Devi's case (supra) and examining the rigor of Section 167 of the M.V. Act of 1988, the learned Tribunal, instead of adjudicating the claim petition on merits, has consigned the claim to record with liberty to the petitioner-claimants to apply for revival of the claim after withdrawal of the claim preferred by them under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. 5. Mr. B.L. Tiwari, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has argued that the learned Tribunal ought to have decided the claim petition on merits in the light of verdict rendered in Bidami Devi's case (supra). According to learned counsel, Mr. Tiwari, by consigning the claim petition to record, the learned Tribunal has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested in it, and therefore, the order impugned is not sustainable. 6. Per contra, Mr. Bachhawat, has submitted that by virtue of Section 167 of the Act of 1988, the petitioner-claimants were well within their rights to elect any forum inasmuch as either to avail the remedy under the Workmen Compensation Act for the accident, or to claim compensation under the Act of 1988. 6. Per contra, Mr. Bachhawat, has submitted that by virtue of Section 167 of the Act of 1988, the petitioner-claimants were well within their rights to elect any forum inasmuch as either to avail the remedy under the Workmen Compensation Act for the accident, or to claim compensation under the Act of 1988. For substantiating his argument, the learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the case of Dyamavva (supra). 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 8. On a close scrutiny of the impugned order/award, in my considered opinion, the same cannot be categorized as a judgment or award as is captioned by the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal, in fact, has not decided the lis involved in the matter on merits. On examining the impugned order, in my considered opinion, the approach of the learned Tribunal appears to be quite unusual. When a claim was laid before the learned Tribunal, obviously, it was the duty of the learned Tribunal to decide it either way, and not to resort to such tactics of consigning the file to record. If there was legal objection about the maintainability of the claim petition itself, the learned Tribunal ought to have examined the same as a preliminary issue and thereafter adjudicate the same in the light of the legal precedents. Thus, in totality, the course adopted by the learned Tribunal is per-se illegal, unjust and improper and it is a clear case wherein the learned Tribunal has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested in it. In totality, the impugned order is a glaring example of shirking from the responsibility of the adjudication by the learned Tribunal. 9. Consequently, the impugned order is not sustainable and the same is hereby quashed and set aside. The learned Tribunal is directed to revive the claim petition preferred by the petitioner-claimants and decide the same afresh after considering the rival submissions in accordance with law. It is expected that the learned Tribunal while deciding the matter de-novo shall consider the legal precedents on which reliance is placed by the parties. 10. The parties are directed to remain present before the learned Tribunal on 12th August, 2013.No order as to costs.Petition Disposed of. *******