P.K. Lohra, J. - (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. vs. Smt. Bidami & Ors., reported in MACD : 2009 (2) (Raj.) 528). 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. vs. Dyamavva & Ors., 2013 ACJ 709.
(2.) AT this stage, with the consent of the rival parties, the matter is heard finally. The petitioners (claimants) by this writ petition have assailed the order dt. 21st June, 2012 (Annex.P/1), passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pali, whereby the claim under Sec. 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.
(3.) 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.;