KAMLESH Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The husband of the petitioner no.1 died on 16.01.2002 in a road accident. One Manoj was also injured. The father of the deceased filed a claim petition no. 95 of 2003. The petitioner filed another claim application being claim petition no. 110 of 2003 and the injured Manoj also filed a claim application, which was numbered as 96 of 2003. By an order dated 01.09.2005 ,all the three claim applications were consolidated and claim petition no. 95 of 2003 was made the leading case. It transpires that claim petition nos. 95 of 2003 and 110 of 2003 were allowed by a common award dated 05.05.2010.

(2.) It transpires that the respondent no.2, who is owner of the vehicle, filed a recall application, which was allowed by an order dated 02.01.2013 and the award dated 05.05.2010 was recalled. Since then, both the claim petitions are proceeding separately in the same court. The petitioner moved an application that since the evidence has already been adduced in the connected case i.e. claim petition no. 95 of 2003, the claim petition of the petitioner may be connected with claim petition no. 95 of 2013 and the matter may be decided together. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal rejected the application of the petitioner by an order dated 05.03.2013 and also closed the evidence of the petitioner holding that the case cannot be connected since parties are different. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court is of the opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained and that issuing notice to the respondents would only entail delay in disposal of this petition as well as the claim petition and consequently, the writ petition is decided at the admission stage without issuing notice to the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4, since the order will not affect the rights of these respondents.