Order : (GANESH RAM MEENA, J.) 1. This misc. appeal has been preferred by the claimants/appellants against the judgment dated 05.02.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alwar in Claim Case No.4/2009 whereby, the claim petition filed by the claimants/appellants was rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the claimants/appellants at the very outset has made a very limited prayer that only to the extent of recovery of an amount "No Fault Compensation" already paid to the claimants may be set aside and he does not want to press the appeal on its merits. Learned counsel has also referred an order of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Indra Devi & Ors. Vs. Bagada RAm & Anr. (Civil Appeal No.1508/2004) decided on 18.08.2010. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance-Company has opposed the prayer made by counsel for the claimants/appellants and submit that since the claim petition has been dismissed on merits, the claimants cannot retain the amount already paid to them as no fault compensation. 4. Considered the submissions and also perused the material available on record so also the judgment passed by the learned MACT and the order passed in the case of Indra Devi (supra). 5. Brief facts of the matter are that a claim petition was filed by the appellants stating therein that on 31.10.2008 at around 2:30 PM, the deceased-Vijaysingh was going towards his Village Haldina on road side and when he reached Meenabas (Haldina) a tempo came from his behind and banged him resulting into grievous injuries and succumbed during course of treatment. The respondents have filed reply and denied the negligence of the tempo driver and prayed for rejection of the claim petition. 6. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Tribunal has framed as many as four issued and after recording the evidence dismissed the claim petition. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that initially the appellants were allowed compensation of Rs.50,000/- as no fault compensation and after dismissal of the claim petition, the respondents have proceeded to recover the said amount of Rs.50,000/- paid as no fault compensation. 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Indra Devi (supra) has observed as under:- "5. The impugned direction is clearly erroneous and unsustainable in law. 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Indra Devi (supra) has observed as under:- "5. The impugned direction is clearly erroneous and unsustainable in law. The Tribunal has completely failed to realize the true nature and character of the compensation in terms of Section 140 of the Act. The marginal heading to section 140 describes it as based `on the principle of no fault'. As the expression `no fault' suggests the compensation under section 140 is regardless of any wrongful act, neglect or default of the person in respect of whose death the claim is made. 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. The present appeal must, therefore, be allowed. 7. 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." 9. In view of the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Indra Devi (supra), the recovery of an amount to the tune of Rs.50,000/- which was already paid to the claimants as no fault compensation is set aside. 10. The respondents are restrained from making any recovery of the aforesaid amount already paid to the claimants/appellants. 11. The present appeal stands disposed of. 12. The stay application as well as pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.