JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, C.J.:-- 1. This appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is directed against the judgment dated 20-12-2002 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No. 3, West Tripura, Agartala in case No. T.S.(MAC) 558 of 2000 whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants was dismissed on the ground that the occurrence did not arise out of the use of a motor vehicle. 2. The appellants, who are the petitioners before the trial Court, had filed a petition under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. It was alleged that Sri Basudeb Kalai, husband of the petitioner-appellant No. 1 and father of the others died on 01-05-2000 at Mohanpur on the Assam-Agartala road. It was alleged that when the deceased was travelling in the bus being No. TRS-867 from ADC Chowmuhani, Jirania to Agartala, at Mohanpur some extremists gave a signal to the vehicle to stop. When the vehicle was stopped, the miscreants entered into the bus, beat the deceased and he received grievous injuries and ultimately died in the G.B. Hospital. On this ground, compensation was claimed under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. 3. This is a petition filed under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and it was claimed in the claim petition that the deceased was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month or Rs. 72,000/- per annum. 4. In this very case, a larger Bench was constituted to decide the following question of law:- Whether a petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is maintainable even where the income of the victim or the injured or the deceased is more than Rs. 40,000/- per annum.? 5. This question was answered by holding that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Deepal Girishbhai Soni & Ors. V. United Insurance Co. Ltd. (2004) 5 SCC 385 ] and Puttamma and Others Vrs. K.L. Narayana Reddy and another AIR 2014 SC 706 ], no such claim petition is maintainable. 6. Therefore, the claim petition has to be rejected, as not maintainable. The rejection of the claim petition shall not, however, disentitle the claimants to file any other petition or proceedings, if otherwise maintainable under law. 7. It is also made clear that in case, any such fresh proceedings are filed, the respondents shall be at liberty to take all defences available to them. The rejection of the claim petition shall not, however, disentitle the claimants to file any other petition or proceedings, if otherwise maintainable under law. 7. It is also made clear that in case, any such fresh proceedings are filed, the respondents shall be at liberty to take all defences available to them. 8. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. 9. Send down the lower court records forthwith.