In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh F.A.O. No.1211 of 2009 Date of decision: September 08, 2009 Bharpur Chand .. Appellant Vs. Randhir Singh and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. P.K.S. Phoolka, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Gopal Mittal, Advocate for the Insurance Company. A.N. Jindal, J This appeal is directed against the award dated 31.10.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bathinda, dismissing the claim petition on the ground that earlier the claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act (herein referred as 'the Act') was dismissed in default on 12.6.2007. The present claim petition under Section 166 of the Act filed later on was not maintainable and the claimant could get the earlier claim petition restored. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that on the dismissal of the application under Section 163-A of the Act the claimant could file the petition under Section 166 of the Act being an alternative remedy. Both the remedies are not synonymous but alternative. Even Division Bench of this Court in case Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Saroj and others, 2007 (1) RCR (Civil) 152 has held that even the application moved by the claimant under Section 166 of the Act could be converted into Section 163 of the Act or vice versa. In these circumstances, impugned order being against the settled principles of law deserves to be set aside. Resultantly, I accept the appeal, set aside the impugned order and remit the case back to decide the same on merits in accordance with law. September 08, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge