JUDGMENT : Paresh Upadhyay, J. 1. Challenge in these petitions is made to, two separate but identical orders dated 17.01.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main) at Morbi:- (i) below Exh. 1 in MACMA No. 128 of 2018 in MACP No. 101 of 2010 and (ii) below Exh. 1 in MACMA No. 129 of 2018 in MACP No. 64 of 2010. By the impugned orders, the Tribunal has allowed the applications filed by the claimants, to withdraw the compensation amount deposited by the Insurance Company, without set off of the amount which the respondents -claimants owe to the petitioner Insurance Company, as per the order of the competent Court (MACT, Rajkot), connected with the same accident. 2. Heard learned advocates. 3. Mr. Raval, learned advocate for the petitioner Insurance Company has taken this Court extensively through the relevant facts, which are on record and which are referred to, hereinafter. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the relevant provisions of law, more particularly Section 166 and 146 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the amendment in Section 166 by the Act 154 of 1994. He has also taken this Court through the objects and reasons of the said amendment, including the recommendations of the Law Commission of India, which was the basis for the amendment in the Act. It is submitted that the impugned orders be interfered with and the present petitions be allowed, by modifying the impugned orders to the extent that, the amount which the claimants owe to the Insurance Company be adjusted while making disbursement of the amount to them. Reliance is also placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited versus Raval Rupsibhai Pasabhai reported in 2015 (1) GLR 216 . 4. Mr. Bhalodi, learned advocate for the respondents -claimants has vehemently opposed these petitions. It is submitted that the Tribunal has not committed any error by allowing the disbursement applications. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has also not committed any error while rejecting the objections filed by the Insurance Company. 4. Mr. Bhalodi, learned advocate for the respondents -claimants has vehemently opposed these petitions. It is submitted that the Tribunal has not committed any error by allowing the disbursement applications. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has also not committed any error while rejecting the objections filed by the Insurance Company. It is submitted that if the petitioner Insurance Company intends to recover the amount, which the present respondents owe to it, it may initiate appropriate proceedings for the said recovery, but no amount be permitted to be adjusted in the present case. It is submitted that these petitions be dismissed. 5. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having considered the material on record, this Court finds as under. 5.1. The petitioner - Insurance Company is one of the opponents in the claim petitions at Rajkot and Morbi, arising from the same accident. 5.2. The said accident took place on 25.03.2010 between a truck (GJ-02-V-4702) and a Maruti zen car (GJ-06-AA-7834), within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal at Morbi. The truck was insured with the United India Insurance Company Limited. The car was not insured. 5.3. The car was owned by Makanlal Ramjibhai Dalsaniya and was driven by his son viz., Sureshbhai Makanlal Dalsaniya. It is indicated that said Sureshbhai was a teacher and was going to Ambaji to attend a seminar of Principals' Association. Along with him, few of his friends/colleagues were also to attend the said seminar and were travelling in the same car with Sureshbhai. The persons travelling with Sureshbhai in the said car, were Chhotalal Dhanjibhai Bavarva and Dharmendrabhai Bhagwanjibhai Viramgama. 5.4. In the said accident, the driver of the car (Sureshbhai Makanlal Dalsaniya) and one of the two co-passengers (Chhotalal Dhanjibhai Bavarva) died. Another co-passenger of the car (Dharmendrabhai Bhagwanjibhai Viramgama) sustained serious injuries. 5.5. One Kukabhai @ Merubhai Sondabhai, who was a passenger in the Truck, also sustained injuries. 5.6. Legal Heirs of deceased Chhotalal Dhanjibhai Bavarva and Dharmendrabhai Bhagwanjibhai Viramgama filed two claim petitions viz. MACP No. 602 of 2010 and 603 of 2010 respectively before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.) at Rajkot. Both petitions were allowed by the Tribunal by the common judgment dated 17.03.2018. The Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence (60% : 40%) of the driver of the truck and the driver of the car respectively. MACP No. 602 of 2010 and 603 of 2010 respectively before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.) at Rajkot. Both petitions were allowed by the Tribunal by the common judgment dated 17.03.2018. The Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence (60% : 40%) of the driver of the truck and the driver of the car respectively. The Tribunal quantified the amount of compensation and ordered that, the claimants are entitled to get Rs. 46,33,000/- (in MACP (Fatal) No. 602 of 2010) and Rs. 1,94,000/- (in MACP (injury) No. 603 of 2010), with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the opponents (owner of the truck, Insurance Company of the truck, legal heirs of the driver of the car and owner of the car) jointly and severally. The said amount (entire awarded amount) was deposited by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal at Rajkot i.e. including the amount payable by (i) the legal heirs of the driver including widow - Daxaben Dalsaniya and father - Makanlal Dalsaniya and (ii) the owner of the car - Makanlal Ramjibhai Dalsaniya. 5.7. Since the driver of the car (Sureshbhai Makanlal Dalsaniya) had also died in the said accident, his legal heirs, (wife, children, father and mother of deceased Sureshbhai Makanlal Dalsaniya) also filed a claim petition at MACT, Morbi being MACP No. 64 of 2010. Since the car was also damaged, the owner of the car (the father of the driver - deceased - Sureshbhai) viz., Makanlal Ramjibhai Dalsaniya filed claim petition No. 101 of 2010 for damages. It is also before the same Tribunal at Morbi. Both these claim petitions were heard together and were partly allowed by the Tribunal by the common judgment dated 21.06.2018. The Tribunal at Morbi also held that, the accident occurred due to contributory negligence (60% : 40%) of the driver of the truck and the driver of the car respectively. The Tribunal quantified the amount of compensation and ordered that, the claimants (in fatal case) are entitled to get Rs. 24,86,700/-, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. So far the damage to the car is concerned, the Tribunal directed to pay Rs. 24,000/-, with interest. The said amount (both claim petitions) is deposited by the Insurance Company with the Tribunal at Morbi. 5.8. 24,86,700/-, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. So far the damage to the car is concerned, the Tribunal directed to pay Rs. 24,000/-, with interest. The said amount (both claim petitions) is deposited by the Insurance Company with the Tribunal at Morbi. 5.8. The MACP No. 206 of 2010 was filed by one Kakubhai @ Merubhai Sondabhai (the injured), who was travelling in the truck, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main) at Morbi. The said claim petition was partly allowed by the Tribunal vide judgment dated 21.06.2018. The Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence (60% : 40%) of the driver of the truck and the driver of the car respectively and ordered that the claimant is entitled to get Rs. 1,06,400/-, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the opponents (i.e. the owner of the truck and Insurance Company of the truck), jointly and severally. The said amount is deposited by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal at Morbi. 6.1. The legal heirs of the deceased driver of the car (Sureshbhai, son of Makanlal), who were claimants of MACP No. 64 of 2010 filed an application before the MACT, Morbi for withdrawal of the claim amount. The said application is registered as MACMA No. 129 of 2018 in MACP No. 64 of 2010. These claimants are widow, children, father (Makanlal Ramjibhai Dalsaniya) and mother. Along with the said application, the father of the deceased - as the owner of the car - Makanlal Ramjibhai Dalsaniya also made an application for disbursement, being MACMA No. 128 of 2018 in MACP No. 101 of 2010. 6.2. In the above withdrawal applications, the insurance company - present petitioner filed objections vide Exh. 5 in both the matters, inter alia contending that, while permitting the withdrawal of the amount deposited by the Insurance Company with the Tribunal at Morbi, the amount which these claimants owe to the Insurance Company for the very same accident, towards the amount which is paid by the Insurance Company to other claimants on behalf of these claimants, be adjusted and only the remaining amount be disbursed. 6.3. The above objection of the Insurance Company is rejected by the Tribunal at Morbi and has allowed the applications for withdrawal by the claimants for the entire amount (without deduction/set off). 6.4. 6.3. The above objection of the Insurance Company is rejected by the Tribunal at Morbi and has allowed the applications for withdrawal by the claimants for the entire amount (without deduction/set off). 6.4. It is in this undisputed factual position, these petitions are being considered by this Court. 7.1. The above controversy needs to be weighed vis-à-vis the relevant provision of law. It is not in dispute that the accident in question had taken place in the territorial jurisdiction of the Morbi Tribunal. The place at which the claim petition can be filed, is regulated by Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act' for short). The relevant part of the said provision, reads as under. "166. Application for compensation [(2) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be made, at the option of the claimant, either to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred or to the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or carries on business or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides, and shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed : Provided that..." 7.2. The above quoted Sub-section 2 of Section 166 of the Act was substituted by the Amendment Act 54 of 1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994. Section 166(2), as it stood, prior to the said amendment, reads as under. "166. Application for compensation [(2) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be made to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred and shall be in such form and shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed : Provided that..." 7.3. The object and reason for the above amendment, reads as under. "Object and reasons of amendment of 1994 [Act No. 59 of 1988 as amended by Act 54 of 1994] Prefatory Note- Statement of Objects and Reasons to parent Act- 5. The Law Commission in its 119th Report had recommended that every application for a claim be made to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred or to the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or carries on business or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides, at the option of the claimant. The Bill also makes necessary provision to give effect to the said recommendation." 7.4. In view of above, the object of substituting Section 166(2) can be traced in the report of the Law Commission of India. The operative part of the said report of the Law Commission reads as under. "119th Law Commission Report Chapter V Conclusion 5.1 Compensation for victims of motor accidents is itself, to some extent, a measure of social justice as also a facet of social security. Compulsory insurance for third party risk supports this inference. If that be so, availability of social justice and social security must be within the easy reach of people entitled to it. Victims of accidents, excluding some very rich persons, belong to this class. As against poor pedestrians or travellers in cheap vehicles as motor rickshaws and not so very road-worthy buses on contract carriage hired by waker sections of society, the insurer and the insured are better placed. Further, the cost of transport of witnesses, claimants, the inconvenience of prosecuting litigation in a wholly unknown area may induce an instinctive reaction to the initiation of proceedings. To contract this position, it is necessary to amend section 110A(2) so as to provide therein that every application under sub-section (1) shall be made to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred, or to the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or carries on business or personally works for gain or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides or carries on business or works for gain, at the option of the claimant. 5.2 Necessary consequential amendments may have to be made in the rules, forms, etc.," 7.5. The conjoint consideration of the above would show that, but for the amendment in Section 166(2) of the Act, the claims petition could not have been filed by any of the claimants at Rajkot Tribunal. All the claim petitions were required to be filed at Morbi. 7.6. In the present case, the first ground which has weighed with the Tribunal at Morbi, to reject the objection of the Insurance Company is that, the amount which is the subject matter of the award passed by the other Tribunal (at Rajkot) can not be adjusted at Morbi. All the claim petitions were required to be filed at Morbi. 7.6. In the present case, the first ground which has weighed with the Tribunal at Morbi, to reject the objection of the Insurance Company is that, the amount which is the subject matter of the award passed by the other Tribunal (at Rajkot) can not be adjusted at Morbi. This would not only stand in conflict with the object sought to be achieved by the amendment in the Act, it would also give premium to those claimants, who are also standing as judgment debtors vis-à-vis other claimants, which is the case in hand. Convenience of the claimants, can not be stretched to the extent of absolving them from their liability towards other claimants, at the cost of the co-judgment debtor, which in the present case is the petitioner - Insurance Company. 7.7. As noted above, some of the claimants had approached the Rajkot Tribunal and some of them at Morbi Tribunal. Though this can not be said to be impermissible, keeping in view the amendment in the Act as noted above, the same can also not be stretched to the extent that, the Insurance Company would not be entitled to get the money back, which it has paid on behalf of other claimants, only because some more convenience is provided by the statute, to the claimants, to avoid hardship to them. For all these reasons, the first ground which has weighed with the Tribunal, needs to be set aside. 8. The next factor which has weighed with the Tribunal is that, the amount which is the subject matter of the other claim petition, can not be adjusted. This Court finds that, this reasoning is unsustainable for more than one reasons. As in the facts of the present case, there were more than one fatal cases and more than one injury cases, even in absence of any amendment in Section 166(2) of the Act as noted above, all claim petitions, though might have been filed at Morbi Tribunal only, those claim petitions would certainly have been through different persons, in different petitions. If the second reason recorded by the Tribunal is accepted, it would lead to a situation that the Insurance Company would require to pay compensation in different claim petitions, to different persons, but would not be able to recover it from the claimant of the very same group, who owe money to it, from that very litigation. It would not have any nexus with any object which can legally be sought to be achieved, and further that, such a situation would be impermissible in law. The second reason recorded by the Tribunal in the impugned order, also therefore needs to be set aside. 9. For the above reasons, this Court arrives at the judgment that, both the reasons recorded by the Tribunal in the impugned orders, to reject the objections of the Insurance Company need to be set aside. If the impugned orders are seen, the objection filed by the Insurance Company are rejected only on the above two grounds, which are held to be unsustainable as recorded above. In view of this, this Court finds that, the objections filed by the Insurance Company, contending that it be permitted to set off of the amount, which the claimants owe to it, that too in that very accident, need to be allowed. The resultant effect thereof would be that, the applications by the present respondents - claimants for withdrawal of amount, can be allowed after deducting the amount, which they (the claimants) owe to the Insurance company. 10. There is one more dimension which would further tilt the balance against the respondents - claimants. It is as under. 10.1. It is not in dispute that two persons died in the car (GJ-06-AA-7834) which was not insured. 10.2. In this factual background, Section 146 of the Act would come in play. Relevant part of the said Section reads as under : "Sec. 146 : Necessity for insurance against third party risk.- (1) No person shall use, except as a passenger, or cause or allow any other person to use, a motor vehicle in a public place, unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person or that other person, as the case may be, a policy of insurance complying with the requirements of this Chapter...." 10.3. The above Section mandates that, neither the driver of the car (Sureshbhai) could have used the car which was not insured, nor the owner of the car (Makanlal) could have allowed any person to use the said car. As a matter of fact, the car was used and two persons, who were travelling in the car, died in the accident. This also included the driver, who was using it against the mandate of Section 146 of the Act. The legal heirs of the driver also include his father, who was the owner of the car. Neither of these legal heirs can be permitted to be in more advantageous position, on this additional count as well. 10.4. The decision of this Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited versus Raval Rupsibhai Pasabhai reported in 2015 (1) GLR 216 , would also apply in the present case. 11. Considering the totality, this Court arrives at the judgment that, both the reasons recorded by the Tribunal in the impugned orders, to reject the objections of the Insurance Company need to be set aside. 12. As noted above, the resultant effect thereof would be that, the applications filed by the respondents - claimants for withdrawal of amount, can be allowed after deducting the amount, which they (the claimants) owe to the Insurance company. The calculation given on behalf of the petitioner - Insurance Company in this regard is on record and there is no dispute by the claimants about the said calculation. It reads as under. 12.1. The details of the amount deposited by the Insurance Company at Morbi Tribunal are as under: a. Rs. 43,72,349/- (MACP No. 64 of 2010) - Legal heirs of deceased Sureshbhai Makanlal Dalsaniya. b. Rs. 47,339/- (MACP No. 101 of 2010) - Makanlal Dalsaniya for car damage c. Total - Rs. 44,19,688/- 12.2. The details of the amount owed by the above claimants to the Insurance Company, qua the claim petitions filed by other claimants, arising from the same accident are as under: a. Rs. 30,78,943/- (MCAP No. 602 of 2010, Rajkot) b. Rs. 1,25,953/- (MACP No. 603 of 2010, Rajkot) c. Rs. 74,490/- (MACP No. 206 of 2010, Morbi) d. Total - Rs. 32,79,386/- 12.3. The respondents - claimants would be entitled to withdraw the amount of Rs. 11,40,302/- (Rs. 44,19,688 minus Rs. 32,79,386/-). 12.4. The amount of Rs. 30,78,943/- (MCAP No. 602 of 2010, Rajkot) b. Rs. 1,25,953/- (MACP No. 603 of 2010, Rajkot) c. Rs. 74,490/- (MACP No. 206 of 2010, Morbi) d. Total - Rs. 32,79,386/- 12.3. The respondents - claimants would be entitled to withdraw the amount of Rs. 11,40,302/- (Rs. 44,19,688 minus Rs. 32,79,386/-). 12.4. The amount of Rs. 32,79,386/- needs to be refunded to the petitioner - Insurance Company with accrued interest, if any. 13. In view of above, the following order is passed. 13.1. Both these petitions are allowed. 13.2. The impugned orders dated 17.01.2019, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main) at Morbi:- (i) below Exh. 1 in MACMA No. 128 of 2018 in MACP No. 101 of 2010 and (ii) below Exh. 1 in MACMA No. 129 of 2018 in MACP No. 64 of 2010 are set aside. 13.3. The objections filed by the Insurance Company in the withdrawal applications, are allowed. The applications filed by the claimants, to withdraw the compensation amount, on which the impugned orders were passed, are allowed to the extent that, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the amount, after set off of the amount which the claimants owe to the petitioner - Insurance Company, the details of which are noted above. In other words, the amount of Rs. 32,79,386/- is directed to be refunded to the petitioner - Insurance Company, with accrued interest, if any. 13.4. The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal at Morbi is directed to consider the withdrawal applications of the respondents - claimants afresh, keeping in view this judgment and pass appropriate order, permitting the disbursement of the amount/part thereof to the claimants, in accordance with law.