JUDGMENT Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - Appellants / claimants have preferred the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming the following relief:- "It is, therefore, prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed, the impugned judgment dated 12.08.2010 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Merta be set aside and the claim petition filed by the claimant appellants be allowed in toto with costs throughout." 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that no fault liability which was claimed has already been allowed and the recovery in respect thereof has also been stayed by this Hon'ble Court, in the given circumstances, when the accident causing socalled alleged death itself had happened in year 2007. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Indra Devi & Ors. Vs. Bagada Ram & Anr.,2011 RAR 21 (SC) , relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under :- "6. We have examined the nature of the 'no fault compensation' payable under section 140 of the Act in Eshwarappa @ Maheshwarappa and Anr. vs. C.S. Gurushanthappa and Anr. (Civil Appeal No.7049 of 2002), the judgment in which is pronounced today. We, therefore, do not wish to elaborate the point further. Suffice to say that in view of our judgment in Civil Appeal No.7049 of 2002, the Tribunal was patently in error, in directing for the refund of the amount of 'no fault compensation' already paid to the claimants, to the insurance company. The High Court was equally in error in missing out this grave mistake in the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal and not setting it right. 7. The present appeal must, therefore, be allowed. The order of the Tribunal insofar as it permits the insurance company (respondent no.2) to recover the amount of interim compensation alongwith the interest from the claimants/appellants is set aside." 4. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, opposes the submission made on behalf of the appellant. 5. This Court looking into the peculiar facts of the case and taking note of the fact that the accident had happened 12 years ago and no fault liability was paid in regard to the death of Pappu Ram. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, opposes the submission made on behalf of the appellant. 5. This Court looking into the peculiar facts of the case and taking note of the fact that the accident had happened 12 years ago and no fault liability was paid in regard to the death of Pappu Ram. 6. This Court finds that it is a fit case where the precedent law cited at Bar has to be followed, and no fault liability paid 12 years ago, need not be recovered as the interim order passed by this Hon'ble Court is already operating, and which is made final. 7. In view of the above, the present appeal is disposed of. All pending applications stand disposed of.