SHANKAR BHAI Vs. ABDUL AZIZ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall govern the decision of M. A. No. 264 of 1990, Shankar Bhat v. Abdul Ajiz and MA No. 265 of 1990, Shantilal v. Abdul Ajiz, filed by the appellants aggrieved by the order of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore, dated 21. 12. 1989 in claim case Nos. 21 of 1988 and 28 of 1988. In both the cases the claimants have filed their claim petitions before the lower Tribunal for claiming compensation against the respondents on the basis of an accident which occurred on 25. 11. 1987, alleging that the truck belonging to respondent No. 1 and insured by respondent No. 2 dashed against the Matador in which the claimants were travelling. The claim petitions are still pending for decision.

(2.) DURING the pendency of the petitions the appellants filed applications under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act for interim award. The learned lower Tribunal was, however, of the view that the allegations of the claimants have been denied by the respondents and there is a counter allegation that the driver of the Matador in which the claimants were travelling actually dashed against the truck belonging to the respondent No. 1 and insured with respondent No. 2. The learned Tribunal was of the opinion that it has yet to be decided as to which vehicle dashed against the other vehicle and the owner and the insurance company of the vehicle in which the claimants were travelling have not been made a party. Therefore, no interim award under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 can be given. The appellants are aggrieved by the aforesaid orders.

(3.) ACCORDING to Mr. Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals, when a claimant has been held entitled to get compensation on the ground of no fault liability as envisaged in Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, then the question of deciding the responsibility of the accident would not arise. It is also not necessary for the claimants to implead the owner and driver of the other vehicle as party because the appellants have a choice to make a claim against any of the parties.